<?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 (12) TMI 211 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268907</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found the rejection of the refund claim unjustified, granted interest on the refunded amount, and ordered the swift disbursement of the refund to the appellant. The judgment sets a precedent for cases involving Service Tax on security deposits and emphasizes the importance of legal clarity and procedural fairness in such matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2015 15:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 211 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268907</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found the rejection of the refund claim unjustified, granted interest on the refunded amount, and ordered the swift disbursement of the refund to the appellant. The judgment sets a precedent for cases involving Service Tax on security deposits and emphasizes the importance of legal clarity and procedural fairness in such matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>