<?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 (10) TMI 1096 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194160</link>
    <description>Refund could not be denied on unjust enrichment where the underlying activity was held not taxable and no service tax was collected from subscribers. In the absence of evidence that the tax incidence had been passed on, and where the Revenue did not verify subscriber records or other available material, a presumption of unjust enrichment was not sustainable. The refund denial was therefore unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2017 07:09:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 1096 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194160</link>
      <description>Refund could not be denied on unjust enrichment where the underlying activity was held not taxable and no service tax was collected from subscribers. In the absence of evidence that the tax incidence had been passed on, and where the Revenue did not verify subscriber records or other available material, a presumption of unjust enrichment was not sustainable. The refund denial was therefore unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>