<?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 (8) TMI 1056 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331672</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal for credit on service tax paid for transportation of goods between depots, citing the place of removal as the depot from which goods are sold. However, the decision to remand the issue of credit for maintenance of garden service was upheld due to insufficient information provided by the appellant, with the Tribunal requesting further clarification on the nature of services used for garden maintenance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2016 23:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1056 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331672</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal for credit on service tax paid for transportation of goods between depots, citing the place of removal as the depot from which goods are sold. However, the decision to remand the issue of credit for maintenance of garden service was upheld due to insufficient information provided by the appellant, with the Tribunal requesting further clarification on the nature of services used for garden maintenance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>