<?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>2005 (3) TMI 798 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195860</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax became admissible once the appellate authority set aside the original demand orders for goods transport operator services. The text notes that, after the demand itself was annulled, refusal of refund on the basis that liability had not been separately distinguished was inconsistent with that consequence. The operative result was that the assessee succeeded and the refund claim was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:16:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 798 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195860</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax became admissible once the appellate authority set aside the original demand orders for goods transport operator services. The text notes that, after the demand itself was annulled, refusal of refund on the basis that liability had not been separately distinguished was inconsistent with that consequence. The operative result was that the assessee succeeded and the refund claim was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195860</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>