<?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 (4) TMI 597 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326483</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order confirming a demand of service tax, interest, and penalty. The Tribunal found errors in the computation, determining no actual tax shortfall and granting the appellant abatement due to the reversal of credit, as per previous decisions. The appellant was entitled to the abatement calculated during the service tax discharge in March 2006.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 18:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424004" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 597 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326483</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order confirming a demand of service tax, interest, and penalty. The Tribunal found errors in the computation, determining no actual tax shortfall and granting the appellant abatement due to the reversal of credit, as per previous decisions. The appellant was entitled to the abatement calculated during the service tax discharge in March 2006.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326483</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>