<?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 950 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341980</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim for the specified quarter. Relying on case law and the retrospective nature of the amendment extending the filing period from sixty days to six months, the tribunal held in favor of the appellant. The rejection was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was partly allowed with appropriate reliefs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466474" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 950 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341980</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim for the specified quarter. Relying on case law and the retrospective nature of the amendment extending the filing period from sixty days to six months, the tribunal held in favor of the appellant. The rejection was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was partly allowed with appropriate reliefs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>