<?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 (4) TMI 755 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341785</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s Stay application, setting aside the Commissioner(Appeals)&#039;s decision to condone the delay in filing the refund claim of service tax. The Tribunal found that Sec. 103 of the Finance Act, 1994, does not provide the authority to condone such delays, leading to the decision in favor of the Revenue and scheduling the appeal for a final hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2017 18:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 755 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341785</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s Stay application, setting aside the Commissioner(Appeals)&#039;s decision to condone the delay in filing the refund claim of service tax. The Tribunal found that Sec. 103 of the Finance Act, 1994, does not provide the authority to condone such delays, leading to the decision in favor of the Revenue and scheduling the appeal for a final hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>