<?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 (7) TMI 788 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363480</link>
    <description>Freight and reimbursable expenses were held not to form part of the taxable value of the services under the service definitions, valuation rules, circulars and judicial decisions considered by the adjudicating authority. The authority also examined jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the allegations in the notice before concluding that the demand was not sustainable on the merits. The Revenue failed to identify any legal or factual error justifying remand or interference, and a fresh adjudication was not warranted. The order dropping the demand was therefore upheld, and the attempt to revive the demand in appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2018 06:13:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 788 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363480</link>
      <description>Freight and reimbursable expenses were held not to form part of the taxable value of the services under the service definitions, valuation rules, circulars and judicial decisions considered by the adjudicating authority. The authority also examined jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the allegations in the notice before concluding that the demand was not sustainable on the merits. The Revenue failed to identify any legal or factual error justifying remand or interference, and a fresh adjudication was not warranted. The order dropping the demand was therefore upheld, and the attempt to revive the demand in appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>