<?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 (4) TMI 594 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358483</link>
    <description>The tribunal found a lack of clarity in the impugned order and criticized the non-adherence to Supreme Court guidelines. Due to the adjudicating authority&#039;s failure to understand the case and evidence adequately, a re-hearing was ordered. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of following legal standards and ensuring justice is served. The tribunal highlighted the need for coherence, adherence to guidelines, and thorough evaluation of evidence in reaching a reasoned decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2018 10:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516765" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 594 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358483</link>
      <description>The tribunal found a lack of clarity in the impugned order and criticized the non-adherence to Supreme Court guidelines. Due to the adjudicating authority&#039;s failure to understand the case and evidence adequately, a re-hearing was ordered. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of following legal standards and ensuring justice is served. The tribunal highlighted the need for coherence, adherence to guidelines, and thorough evaluation of evidence in reaching a reasoned decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358483</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>