<?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 (4) TMI 688 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246252</link>
    <description>For refund claims arising from export of services, the relevant date for limitation is the date of receipt of payment for the exported services. Because the refund application was filed within one year from that date, the claim was within time and not time-barred. The refund was therefore admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 688 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246252</link>
      <description>For refund claims arising from export of services, the relevant date for limitation is the date of receipt of payment for the exported services. Because the refund application was filed within one year from that date, the claim was within time and not time-barred. The refund was therefore admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246252</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>