<?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>2016 (11) TMI 1438 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194135</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim due to exceeding the limitation period and the ineligibility of Shipping and Insurance Services as &#039;input services&#039;. The Commissioner&#039;s decision denying the claim for Insurance Services was supported, citing the lack of evidence linking them to manufacturing activities or buyer agreements. The appeal lacked merit and was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:56:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1438 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194135</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim due to exceeding the limitation period and the ineligibility of Shipping and Insurance Services as &#039;input services&#039;. The Commissioner&#039;s decision denying the claim for Insurance Services was supported, citing the lack of evidence linking them to manufacturing activities or buyer agreements. The appeal lacked merit and was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>