<?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 (2) TMI 136 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354715</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, setting aside the impugned order classifying services as brand promotion and dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in unilaterally changing the classification from business support service to brand promotion service, which was not permitted under the law. The judgment was pronounced on 31.1.2018.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 136 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354715</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, setting aside the impugned order classifying services as brand promotion and dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in unilaterally changing the classification from business support service to brand promotion service, which was not permitted under the law. The judgment was pronounced on 31.1.2018.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354715</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>