<?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 (9) TMI 1732 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367996</link>
    <description>The Court admitted the appeal solely on the issue of penalty imposition under Section 11AC, as other issues regarding royalty inclusion, timeliness of demand, and precedent reliance were either withdrawn or not pursued. The focus remained on the penalty imposition despite certified production costs, leading to a detailed examination of this specific legal aspect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2018 06:46:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536441" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1732 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367996</link>
      <description>The Court admitted the appeal solely on the issue of penalty imposition under Section 11AC, as other issues regarding royalty inclusion, timeliness of demand, and precedent reliance were either withdrawn or not pursued. The focus remained on the penalty imposition despite certified production costs, leading to a detailed examination of this specific legal aspect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>