<?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 488 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374861</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Original, upholding the demand for Service Tax for the period from 18.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 but dropping the demand for the period prior to 18.04.2006. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide on the issue of limitation related to the latter period, along with considerations on interest and penalty. The Tribunal found the limitation issue inadequately addressed and ordered a detailed analysis by the adjudicating Commissioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2019 07:04:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=557356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 488 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374861</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Original, upholding the demand for Service Tax for the period from 18.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 but dropping the demand for the period prior to 18.04.2006. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide on the issue of limitation related to the latter period, along with considerations on interest and penalty. The Tribunal found the limitation issue inadequately addressed and ordered a detailed analysis by the adjudicating Commissioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374861</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>