<?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 (3) TMI 306 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339803</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal set aside the original authority&#039;s decision to disallow a portion of the refund claim under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for exported services. The tribunal emphasized the lack of notice to the appellant for the disallowance and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The decision aimed to restore the refund claim and uphold due process for the appellant, highlighting the importance of providing proper notice before rejecting any part of the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:35:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460549" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 306 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339803</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal set aside the original authority&#039;s decision to disallow a portion of the refund claim under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for exported services. The tribunal emphasized the lack of notice to the appellant for the disallowance and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The decision aimed to restore the refund claim and uphold due process for the appellant, highlighting the importance of providing proper notice before rejecting any part of the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339803</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>