<?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 563 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345451</link>
    <description>Service tax demands for goods transport agency services require a clear, quantified show-cause notice; a vague or unquantified notice cannot validly support confirmation of demand. The text also notes that a notice issued beyond the permissible limitation period is barred and cannot sustain proceedings. On these grounds, the demand proceedings were held unsustainable, the impugned orders were set aside, and the original dropping of the demand was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:24:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=481666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 563 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345451</link>
      <description>Service tax demands for goods transport agency services require a clear, quantified show-cause notice; a vague or unquantified notice cannot validly support confirmation of demand. The text also notes that a notice issued beyond the permissible limitation period is barred and cannot sustain proceedings. On these grounds, the demand proceedings were held unsustainable, the impugned orders were set aside, and the original dropping of the demand was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>