<?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 297 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345185</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, noting the failure to address the classification of services under Business Support Services (BSS) and Development &amp;amp; Supply of Content Services (DSCS) for the respective periods. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a speaking order and the preference for a more specific classification of services under the Finance Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2018 13:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=480708" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 297 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345185</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, noting the failure to address the classification of services under Business Support Services (BSS) and Development &amp;amp; Supply of Content Services (DSCS) for the respective periods. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a speaking order and the preference for a more specific classification of services under the Finance Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>