<?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>2014 (11) TMI 1132 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193910</link>
    <description>The High Court examined the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s order on the limitation aspect for refund claims, emphasizing adherence to legal boundaries. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudication authority due to contradictory reasoning on the acceptance of the refund claim application. The Court upheld the remand decision, allowing the appellant to challenge any future rejection of the claim. The appellant&#039;s apprehension of rejection was addressed, ensuring the right to challenge adverse decisions. The Court advised on early adjudication and noted a minor error in the appellant&#039;s name, which did not affect the order&#039;s substance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:41:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 1132 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193910</link>
      <description>The High Court examined the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s order on the limitation aspect for refund claims, emphasizing adherence to legal boundaries. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudication authority due to contradictory reasoning on the acceptance of the refund claim application. The Court upheld the remand decision, allowing the appellant to challenge any future rejection of the claim. The appellant&#039;s apprehension of rejection was addressed, ensuring the right to challenge adverse decisions. The Court advised on early adjudication and noted a minor error in the appellant&#039;s name, which did not affect the order&#039;s substance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193910</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>