<?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>2018 (1) TMI 211 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353475</link>
    <description>The judgment addressed concerns regarding lack of exposure of the basis for determining liability, inclusion of specific charges in the assessment, jurisdictional issues, and the need for a detailed inquiry to enable effective defense. The resolution led to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal and emphasized the importance of clarity in assessing taxable services. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further examination based on these considerations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2018 08:19:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 211 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353475</link>
      <description>The judgment addressed concerns regarding lack of exposure of the basis for determining liability, inclusion of specific charges in the assessment, jurisdictional issues, and the need for a detailed inquiry to enable effective defense. The resolution led to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal and emphasized the importance of clarity in assessing taxable services. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further examination based on these considerations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>