<?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 (5) TMI 958 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343220</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the tax liability on certain services due to the appellant&#039;s failure to produce documentary evidence, imposed penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and denied CENVAT credit as the appellant could not substantiate their claim with relevant invoices or duty-paying documents. The tribunal found no merit in the appellant&#039;s appeal, rejecting it and upholding the impugned order as correct and legal. The order was pronounced on 07/04/2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 May 2017 09:07:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=469264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 958 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343220</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the tax liability on certain services due to the appellant&#039;s failure to produce documentary evidence, imposed penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and denied CENVAT credit as the appellant could not substantiate their claim with relevant invoices or duty-paying documents. The tribunal found no merit in the appellant&#039;s appeal, rejecting it and upholding the impugned order as correct and legal. The order was pronounced on 07/04/2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>