<?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>2009 (6) TMI 633 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205623</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the decision of the lower appellate authority, determining that the refund claim, considered filed on 21-1-1998, was within the statutory time limit. The appeal was allowed, instructing the original authority to process the refund claim and assess if the duty incidence had been transferred to the buyer, safeguarding the party&#039;s entitlement to a fair hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 633 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205623</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the decision of the lower appellate authority, determining that the refund claim, considered filed on 21-1-1998, was within the statutory time limit. The appeal was allowed, instructing the original authority to process the refund claim and assess if the duty incidence had been transferred to the buyer, safeguarding the party&#039;s entitlement to a fair hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>