<?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>2016 (2) TMI 726 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272021</link>
    <description>The appeal by M/s RITES Limited against the rejection of their refund claim was successful as the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals, which were not challenged by the Revenue. Despite this, the original authority issued a show cause notice leading to partial refund and rejection of remaining claims as time-barred. The Tribunal criticized the refund sanctioning authority for lack of judicial discipline and understanding of tax law, emphasizing the importance of compliance with appellate orders. The impugned order was set aside, and a cost of ` 10,000/- was imposed on the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax Division -III, Delhi.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 16:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417445" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 726 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272021</link>
      <description>The appeal by M/s RITES Limited against the rejection of their refund claim was successful as the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals, which were not challenged by the Revenue. Despite this, the original authority issued a show cause notice leading to partial refund and rejection of remaining claims as time-barred. The Tribunal criticized the refund sanctioning authority for lack of judicial discipline and understanding of tax law, emphasizing the importance of compliance with appellate orders. The impugned order was set aside, and a cost of ` 10,000/- was imposed on the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax Division -III, Delhi.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272021</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>