<?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>2019 (2) TMI 480 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374853</link>
    <description>Inward freight charges were treated as exempt under Notification No. 33/2004-ST because the freight paid per consignment and for a single goods carriage was below the prescribed monetary limits. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case on identical facts and held that the binding precedent could not be departed from. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore set aside, and consequential relief was allowed as per law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2019 07:04:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=557348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 480 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374853</link>
      <description>Inward freight charges were treated as exempt under Notification No. 33/2004-ST because the freight paid per consignment and for a single goods carriage was below the prescribed monetary limits. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case on identical facts and held that the binding precedent could not be departed from. The demand, interest and penalty were therefore set aside, and consequential relief was allowed as per law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>