<?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 (10) TMI 22 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348867</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s appeal and emphasizing the importance of establishing a nexus between input and output services for refund claims. It highlighted the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements for determining the eligibility of services under the CENVAT credit rules, ultimately deeming the services eligible for refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT credit rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2017 17:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491121" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 22 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348867</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s appeal and emphasizing the importance of establishing a nexus between input and output services for refund claims. It highlighted the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements for determining the eligibility of services under the CENVAT credit rules, ultimately deeming the services eligible for refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT credit rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348867</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>