<?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 454 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349299</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the refund claim for the period April 2008 to January 2010 as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the appeal for the period January 2010 to June 2012 was allowed for reconsideration based on the decision in Paul Merchant Ltd. The classification of services under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) was upheld as the Revenue did not contest this determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2017 10:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492157" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 454 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349299</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the refund claim for the period April 2008 to January 2010 as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the appeal for the period January 2010 to June 2012 was allowed for reconsideration based on the decision in Paul Merchant Ltd. The classification of services under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) was upheld as the Revenue did not contest this determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349299</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>