<?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 (11) TMI 1350 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268541</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, and directed the adjudicating authority to re-examine the refund on the unjust enrichment aspect. The judgment clarified the timeliness of the refund claim in relation to the adjudication order and affirmed the application of Section 11B(1) and its explanation in determining the relevant date for refund claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:57:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1350 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268541</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, and directed the adjudicating authority to re-examine the refund on the unjust enrichment aspect. The judgment clarified the timeliness of the refund claim in relation to the adjudication order and affirmed the application of Section 11B(1) and its explanation in determining the relevant date for refund claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>