<?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 (5) TMI 33 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259159</link>
    <description>A review order rejecting refund on unjust enrichment was held unsustainable where the adjudicating authority had already verified the Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate and related material showing the tax had not been recovered from buyers and was reflected as receivable. The later review could not reopen those recorded findings after appellate disposal, and the rejection was set aside. The refund claim was also held not barred by limitation under Section 11B because the service tax had not been legally payable under the applicable exemption notification; in that setting, the amount was treated as tax not lawfully due rather than an ordinary tax refund. The refund claims were allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 33 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259159</link>
      <description>A review order rejecting refund on unjust enrichment was held unsustainable where the adjudicating authority had already verified the Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate and related material showing the tax had not been recovered from buyers and was reflected as receivable. The later review could not reopen those recorded findings after appellate disposal, and the rejection was set aside. The refund claim was also held not barred by limitation under Section 11B because the service tax had not been legally payable under the applicable exemption notification; in that setting, the amount was treated as tax not lawfully due rather than an ordinary tax refund. The refund claims were allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>