<?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 (2) TMI 1148 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339448</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals on 7.2.2017, affirming the classification of the service as business auxiliary service, denying the deduction of material cost, upholding the invocation of the extended period, rejecting the benefit of Notification 12/2003-ST, and dismissing the claim of acting as a pure agent for abatement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2017 14:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1148 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339448</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals on 7.2.2017, affirming the classification of the service as business auxiliary service, denying the deduction of material cost, upholding the invocation of the extended period, rejecting the benefit of Notification 12/2003-ST, and dismissing the claim of acting as a pure agent for abatement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>