<?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 (7) TMI 171 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345059</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal based on past judicial pronouncements regarding the adjustment of excess service tax paid towards subsequent liabilities. The judgment emphasized that procedural grounds should not be used to deny such adjustments when there is no question of double payment of service tax. The decision highlighted the importance of following the prescribed rules for adjustments while considering the practical aspects of tax liability settlements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=479798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 171 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345059</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal based on past judicial pronouncements regarding the adjustment of excess service tax paid towards subsequent liabilities. The judgment emphasized that procedural grounds should not be used to deny such adjustments when there is no question of double payment of service tax. The decision highlighted the importance of following the prescribed rules for adjustments while considering the practical aspects of tax liability settlements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>