<?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 1140 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189131</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh order. The tribunal found discrepancies in the quantification of the demand and the rejection of the architect certificate, emphasizing the need for proper verification of evidence. The appellant was granted the opportunity for a fair hearing and submission of documents to explain the discrepancies before a final decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:01:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1140 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189131</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh order. The tribunal found discrepancies in the quantification of the demand and the rejection of the architect certificate, emphasizing the need for proper verification of evidence. The appellant was granted the opportunity for a fair hearing and submission of documents to explain the discrepancies before a final decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189131</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>