<?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>2002 (4) TMI 4 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of a registered stock broker seeking a refund of excess Service Tax payment, overturning the authorities&#039; decision to reject the claim as time-barred. The appellant&#039;s argument that the tax was paid provisionally was accepted, emphasizing that the relevant date for filing a refund claim in provisional assessments is the date of final assessment by the proper officer. The Tribunal highlighted procedural errors by the appellant but ultimately granted relief in accordance with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 4 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of a registered stock broker seeking a refund of excess Service Tax payment, overturning the authorities&#039; decision to reject the claim as time-barred. The appellant&#039;s argument that the tax was paid provisionally was accepted, emphasizing that the relevant date for filing a refund claim in provisional assessments is the date of final assessment by the proper officer. The Tribunal highlighted procedural errors by the appellant but ultimately granted relief in accordance with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>