<?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 575 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355154</link>
    <description>Refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (N.T.) was sustained despite objections on invoice description, timing of credit availment, and nexus with output service. The appellate authority had addressed each objection and relied on Tribunal precedents, and no effective rebuttal or infirmity in that reasoning was shown. The refund claim was therefore upheld and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:31:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 575 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355154</link>
      <description>Refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (N.T.) was sustained despite objections on invoice description, timing of credit availment, and nexus with output service. The appellate authority had addressed each objection and relied on Tribunal precedents, and no effective rebuttal or infirmity in that reasoning was shown. The refund claim was therefore upheld and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>