<?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 (12) TMI 996 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336351</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue only to the extent indicated in its decision. It upheld the remand proceedings ordered by the first appellate authority concerning the matter of refund under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. However, the Tribunal found that interest on delayed payment of the refund was not applicable under the said notification and set aside the first appellate authority&#039;s order for interest payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 13:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 996 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336351</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue only to the extent indicated in its decision. It upheld the remand proceedings ordered by the first appellate authority concerning the matter of refund under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. However, the Tribunal found that interest on delayed payment of the refund was not applicable under the said notification and set aside the first appellate authority&#039;s order for interest payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>