<?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 (2) TMI 144 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243544</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order denying a refund of service tax due to unjust enrichment. It was found that as the appellant had not provided any services, unjust enrichment did not apply, and they were entitled to the refund. The Adjudicating authority was directed to comply with the order within 30 days.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:25:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 144 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243544</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order denying a refund of service tax due to unjust enrichment. It was found that as the appellant had not provided any services, unjust enrichment did not apply, and they were entitled to the refund. The Adjudicating authority was directed to comply with the order within 30 days.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>