<?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>2010 (11) TMI 169 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203473</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the rejection of the appellant&#039;s refund claim, ruling that the lack of signatures on the acknowledgment did not invalidate the timely submission of the claim. The established practice of acknowledging letters without signatures supported the appellant&#039;s argument. The case was remanded for further review by the original adjudicating authority to assess the claim on its merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 169 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203473</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the rejection of the appellant&#039;s refund claim, ruling that the lack of signatures on the acknowledgment did not invalidate the timely submission of the claim. The established practice of acknowledging letters without signatures supported the appellant&#039;s argument. The case was remanded for further review by the original adjudicating authority to assess the claim on its merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>