<?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 422 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339919</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the time limit specified in Notification 41/2007-ST for claiming the exemption through a refund claim must be adhered to by the respondent. As there was no provision to extend this time limit and no reference to Section 11B in the notification, the original order rejecting the refund claim was restored. The appeal by Revenue was allowed, and the cross-objection filed by the respondent after a significant delay was disposed of.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2017 12:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460787" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 422 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339919</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the time limit specified in Notification 41/2007-ST for claiming the exemption through a refund claim must be adhered to by the respondent. As there was no provision to extend this time limit and no reference to Section 11B in the notification, the original order rejecting the refund claim was restored. The appeal by Revenue was allowed, and the cross-objection filed by the respondent after a significant delay was disposed of.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339919</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>