<?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>2014 (1) TMI 1508 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243293</link>
    <description>An amended refund notification extending the filing period to one year from the date of export was applied to pending claims, and a claim filed within that revised period was not time-barred. The procedural extension was treated as applicable to the pending refund claim, so rejection on limitation was not justified. The claim remained subject to compliance with the other prescribed conditions of the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2015 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1508 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243293</link>
      <description>An amended refund notification extending the filing period to one year from the date of export was applied to pending claims, and a claim filed within that revised period was not time-barred. The procedural extension was treated as applicable to the pending refund claim, so rejection on limitation was not justified. The claim remained subject to compliance with the other prescribed conditions of the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243293</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>