<?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 (1) TMI 1130 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186898</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding them entitled to refunds for service tax paid on input services used in exporting output services. The adjudicating authority was directed to reprocess and re-adjudicate the refund claims. However, the appeal regarding the refund of excise duty on capital goods was dismissed. All sixteen appeals were remanded to the Original Adjudicating authority for further action, except for the capital goods appeal, which was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 11:14:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1130 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186898</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding them entitled to refunds for service tax paid on input services used in exporting output services. The adjudicating authority was directed to reprocess and re-adjudicate the refund claims. However, the appeal regarding the refund of excise duty on capital goods was dismissed. All sixteen appeals were remanded to the Original Adjudicating authority for further action, except for the capital goods appeal, which was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186898</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>