<?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 (6) TMI 330 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361503</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal that reversed the tax liability confirmation on the recipient for service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal found that the service providers had already paid the entire service tax due, as per the findings of the first appellate authority, which were not challenged by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was legally sound and did not warrant any interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 08:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 330 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361503</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal that reversed the tax liability confirmation on the recipient for service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal found that the service providers had already paid the entire service tax due, as per the findings of the first appellate authority, which were not challenged by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was legally sound and did not warrant any interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>