<?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 (11) TMI 115 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218100</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to credit the service tax refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund, rejecting the appellant&#039;s claim for the refund. The appellant&#039;s argument that they had not passed on the tax to clients was dismissed, as the Tribunal found that the tax expenditure had been recorded in their books, increasing the value of output services. The Tribunal differentiated this case from a previous precedent cited by the appellant, emphasizing the necessity of charging the true cost incurred against current year&#039;s receipts. The appeal was consequently rejected, affirming the decision to credit the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Nov 2012 14:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191474" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 115 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218100</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to credit the service tax refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund, rejecting the appellant&#039;s claim for the refund. The appellant&#039;s argument that they had not passed on the tax to clients was dismissed, as the Tribunal found that the tax expenditure had been recorded in their books, increasing the value of output services. The Tribunal differentiated this case from a previous precedent cited by the appellant, emphasizing the necessity of charging the true cost incurred against current year&#039;s receipts. The appeal was consequently rejected, affirming the decision to credit the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>