<?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>2020 (6) TMI 257 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395882</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order but remanded the matter for re-quantification of the demand after considering the cum-tax value and tax already paid by the appellant. Penalties imposed under various sections were upheld but required re-determination. The appeal was allowed to this extent, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=614986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 257 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395882</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order but remanded the matter for re-quantification of the demand after considering the cum-tax value and tax already paid by the appellant. Penalties imposed under various sections were upheld but required re-determination. The appeal was allowed to this extent, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>