<?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>2013 (7) TMI 552 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235394</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal filed by M/s Rose I T Solution Pvt. Ltd regarding their refund application for Cenvat Credit for the period from July 2009 to September 2009. The appeal was denied due to insufficient evidence of submission of refund claims for two quarters and the ineligibility of the amount claimed for refund based on the timing of the tax payment. The Order in Appeal was upheld, and the appeal was ultimately rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:14:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 552 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235394</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal filed by M/s Rose I T Solution Pvt. Ltd regarding their refund application for Cenvat Credit for the period from July 2009 to September 2009. The appeal was denied due to insufficient evidence of submission of refund claims for two quarters and the ineligibility of the amount claimed for refund based on the timing of the tax payment. The Order in Appeal was upheld, and the appeal was ultimately rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>