<?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 (10) TMI 512 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349357</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for service tax prior to 10-5-2008, ruling that retrospective application of amendments to Section 67 of the Finance Act and Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules was not justified. Penalties and the extended period of limitation were deemed inapplicable as the appellant had fulfilled their duty. The matter was remanded for recalculating liabilities based on established principles, with the court pronouncing the decision on 18/9/17.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2019 18:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 512 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349357</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for service tax prior to 10-5-2008, ruling that retrospective application of amendments to Section 67 of the Finance Act and Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules was not justified. Penalties and the extended period of limitation were deemed inapplicable as the appellant had fulfilled their duty. The matter was remanded for recalculating liabilities based on established principles, with the court pronouncing the decision on 18/9/17.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349357</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>