<?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 (6) TMI 279 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328570</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, remanding the case for re-computation of the refund amount, excluding the cleaning activity component. The refund claim for most charges was upheld, except for the cleaning activity, as the appellant did not meet accreditation requirements. The decision emphasized the necessity of fulfilling statutory conditions for exemptions under applicable notifications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 14:24:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 279 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328570</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, remanding the case for re-computation of the refund amount, excluding the cleaning activity component. The refund claim for most charges was upheld, except for the cleaning activity, as the appellant did not meet accreditation requirements. The decision emphasized the necessity of fulfilling statutory conditions for exemptions under applicable notifications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>