<?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 (5) TMI 978 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360414</link>
    <description>The Member (Judicial) overturned the rejection of the appellant&#039;s refund claim, ruling that the date of filing electronically through ACES portal should be considered the filing date, even if physical documents are submitted later. The claim was deemed within the one-year limit from the quarter end, not from the invoice date, leading to the appeal being allowed due to compliance with the prescribed time limit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520589" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 978 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360414</link>
      <description>The Member (Judicial) overturned the rejection of the appellant&#039;s refund claim, ruling that the date of filing electronically through ACES portal should be considered the filing date, even if physical documents are submitted later. The claim was deemed within the one-year limit from the quarter end, not from the invoice date, leading to the appeal being allowed due to compliance with the prescribed time limit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360414</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>