<?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>2017 (1) TMI 234 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337154</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the refund claim under the amended notification, extending the time limit to file refund claims to one year from the date of export. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with notification conditions should determine refund eligibility, setting aside the previous rejection and allowing the appeals, granting relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2017 13:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 234 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337154</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the refund claim under the amended notification, extending the time limit to file refund claims to one year from the date of export. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with notification conditions should determine refund eligibility, setting aside the previous rejection and allowing the appeals, granting relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>