<?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>2015 (3) TMI 1456 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469095</link>
    <description>A challenge concerning service tax on drilling activities in the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone turned on whether the dispute involved rate of duty or taxability for appellate jurisdiction. Because the assessee accepted that the services were taxable and that the applicable rate was not in dispute, the only issue was whether the 27 February 2010 notification could operate retrospectively from 7 July 2009. The matter was therefore held not to fall within the category of questions relating to rate of duty or taxability, and the preliminary objection to the appeal&#039;s maintainability was rejected; the appeal was maintainable before the High Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:25:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=905049" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1456 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469095</link>
      <description>A challenge concerning service tax on drilling activities in the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone turned on whether the dispute involved rate of duty or taxability for appellate jurisdiction. Because the assessee accepted that the services were taxable and that the applicable rate was not in dispute, the only issue was whether the 27 February 2010 notification could operate retrospectively from 7 July 2009. The matter was therefore held not to fall within the category of questions relating to rate of duty or taxability, and the preliminary objection to the appeal&#039;s maintainability was rejected; the appeal was maintainable before the High Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>