<?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>2017 (1) TMI 802 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337722</link>
    <description>An appeal dismissed under the litigation policy&#039;s monetary limit can be restored where the dispute falls within the recognised exception for classification issues of a legal or recurring nature. The text states that the earlier dismissal was only a collective summary disposal based on the monetary threshold, while the underlying controversy concerned classification of the respondent&#039;s activities as taxable service. Because such classification disputes are continuing in nature, they are not governed by the monetary bar. The restoration was therefore treated as correction of an obvious mistake apparent from the record, not a review of the prior order, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2017 08:24:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 802 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337722</link>
      <description>An appeal dismissed under the litigation policy&#039;s monetary limit can be restored where the dispute falls within the recognised exception for classification issues of a legal or recurring nature. The text states that the earlier dismissal was only a collective summary disposal based on the monetary threshold, while the underlying controversy concerned classification of the respondent&#039;s activities as taxable service. Because such classification disputes are continuing in nature, they are not governed by the monetary bar. The restoration was therefore treated as correction of an obvious mistake apparent from the record, not a review of the prior order, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>