<?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 (6) TMI 162 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328453</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order on service tax liability for the period July 2003 to March 2007. The decision was based on the finding that the demand was time-barred due to the appellant not disclosing commission receipts, which were deemed non-taxable based on previous judicial decisions. The Tribunal emphasized that the lack of queries during audit indicated the Revenue&#039;s awareness of the commission, leading to the conclusion that the demand was unsustainable under the extended period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430527" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 162 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328453</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order on service tax liability for the period July 2003 to March 2007. The decision was based on the finding that the demand was time-barred due to the appellant not disclosing commission receipts, which were deemed non-taxable based on previous judicial decisions. The Tribunal emphasized that the lack of queries during audit indicated the Revenue&#039;s awareness of the commission, leading to the conclusion that the demand was unsustainable under the extended period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>