<?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 (11) TMI 158 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334140</link>
    <description>Refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was held to be within limitation where the application had been filed in time and the department had acknowledged it with supporting documents. Procedural defects in the form or filing could not defeat the substantive claim when the necessary particulars and the nexus between the exported goods and the service tax paid were on record. The notification conditions were treated as satisfied, and the refund was due.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2017 15:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446699" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 158 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334140</link>
      <description>Refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was held to be within limitation where the application had been filed in time and the department had acknowledged it with supporting documents. Procedural defects in the form or filing could not defeat the substantive claim when the necessary particulars and the nexus between the exported goods and the service tax paid were on record. The notification conditions were treated as satisfied, and the refund was due.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>