<?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 (7) TMI 761 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345649</link>
    <description>The substituted six-month refund limitation under Notification No. 32/2008-ST was applied retrospectively to a claim filed for the quarter ending March 2008, because the Board&#039;s Circular No. 112/06/2009-ST clarified the amended period and circulars bind the Department. Relying on earlier Tribunal decisions adopting the same view, the refund claim filed on 03.07.2008 was treated as within time and could not be rejected as time barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 12:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=482432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 761 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345649</link>
      <description>The substituted six-month refund limitation under Notification No. 32/2008-ST was applied retrospectively to a claim filed for the quarter ending March 2008, because the Board&#039;s Circular No. 112/06/2009-ST clarified the amended period and circulars bind the Department. Relying on earlier Tribunal decisions adopting the same view, the refund claim filed on 03.07.2008 was treated as within time and could not be rejected as time barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>