<?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 270 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353534</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of aligning adjudication with show-cause notices and established legal precedents for fair tax assessments. The decision focused on the correct classification of services, abatement considerations, and vivisection of works contracts, ultimately concluding that the demand confirmation under different classifications not proposed in the notice was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 16:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503358" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 270 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353534</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of aligning adjudication with show-cause notices and established legal precedents for fair tax assessments. The decision focused on the correct classification of services, abatement considerations, and vivisection of works contracts, ultimately concluding that the demand confirmation under different classifications not proposed in the notice was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>