<?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>2007 (10) TMI 40 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2912</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of the refund claim for service tax paid by the appellants from April 2000 to February 2004. The Tribunal found that the amounts paid were indeed service tax subject to Section 11B&#039;s limitation period, which had expired, leading to the denial of the claim for the period beyond the limitation period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 40 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2912</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of the refund claim for service tax paid by the appellants from April 2000 to February 2004. The Tribunal found that the amounts paid were indeed service tax subject to Section 11B&#039;s limitation period, which had expired, leading to the denial of the claim for the period beyond the limitation period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>