<?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 (10) TMI 2540 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186882</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the rebate claims were wrongly rejected based on the grounds cited in the adjudication order and the impugned order of the first appellate authority. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication, instructing the authority to verify the rebate claims in line with the Tribunal&#039;s observations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 10:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2540 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186882</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the rebate claims were wrongly rejected based on the grounds cited in the adjudication order and the impugned order of the first appellate authority. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication, instructing the authority to verify the rebate claims in line with the Tribunal&#039;s observations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>