<?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>2015 (4) TMI 173 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258291</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders rejecting the refund claims for service tax paid under the category of &#039;Construction of Complex Services&#039;. The appellants had already discharged the tax liability without a notice under Section 73(1), making the tax paid final. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders, considering the issue closed by revenue authorities. Consequently, the appeals were rejected, and the orders were upheld as legal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2015 20:39:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380533" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 173 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258291</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders rejecting the refund claims for service tax paid under the category of &#039;Construction of Complex Services&#039;. The appellants had already discharged the tax liability without a notice under Section 73(1), making the tax paid final. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders, considering the issue closed by revenue authorities. Consequently, the appeals were rejected, and the orders were upheld as legal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>