<?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>2012 (7) TMI 503 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214933</link>
    <description>The appellate authority upheld the Revenue&#039;s appeal, rejecting the refund claim beyond the one-year limitation period under Section 11B. However, the judgment favored the appellant by recognizing the payments as made under protest, exempting them from the limitation under Section 11B. Consequently, the original adjudicating authority&#039;s decision to allow the refund was upheld, and the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 503 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214933</link>
      <description>The appellate authority upheld the Revenue&#039;s appeal, rejecting the refund claim beyond the one-year limitation period under Section 11B. However, the judgment favored the appellant by recognizing the payments as made under protest, exempting them from the limitation under Section 11B. Consequently, the original adjudicating authority&#039;s decision to allow the refund was upheld, and the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214933</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>