<?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 (12) TMI 1495 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353226</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the rejection of the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It held that the payment made by the appellant was not service tax but an amount paid wrongly, making it refundable. As it was not a service tax amount, Section 11B&#039;s time limitation did not apply. The decision underscores the significance of accurately categorizing payments to tax authorities and applying relevant legal provisions appropriately.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1495 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353226</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the rejection of the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It held that the payment made by the appellant was not service tax but an amount paid wrongly, making it refundable. As it was not a service tax amount, Section 11B&#039;s time limitation did not apply. The decision underscores the significance of accurately categorizing payments to tax authorities and applying relevant legal provisions appropriately.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>