<?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>2018 (2) TMI 483 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355062</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner (A) erred in rejecting the refund claim despite a previous Tribunal decision in favor of the appellant. As the Tribunal decision had not been stayed or set aside by a higher forum, the authorities were bound to adhere to it. The Ld. Commissioner (A) was deemed to have acted without merit, leading to the order being overturned. Consequently, the refund was sanctioned as per the initial adjudication, and the appeal was resolved accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:46:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508229" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 483 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355062</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner (A) erred in rejecting the refund claim despite a previous Tribunal decision in favor of the appellant. As the Tribunal decision had not been stayed or set aside by a higher forum, the authorities were bound to adhere to it. The Ld. Commissioner (A) was deemed to have acted without merit, leading to the order being overturned. Consequently, the refund was sanctioned as per the initial adjudication, and the appeal was resolved accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>