<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (3) TMI 785 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325601</link>
    <description>Rectification of mistake was confined to apparent error on the record, and the earlier finding that the cleaning services were taxable had already been supported by reasons. The plea based on Notification No. 45/2010-ST was not accepted because no inconsistency with the facts or any manifest error was shown. The application was therefore not maintainable on merits and was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 785 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325601</link>
      <description>Rectification of mistake was confined to apparent error on the record, and the earlier finding that the cleaning services were taxable had already been supported by reasons. The plea based on Notification No. 45/2010-ST was not accepted because no inconsistency with the facts or any manifest error was shown. The application was therefore not maintainable on merits and was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>