<?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 1219 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360655</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ordering the refund of the service tax amount paid by the appellants. It held that the amount paid under the reverse charge mechanism was not subject to limitation provisions on service tax refunds. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply as the burden of the tax was not passed on to others. The decision was based on legal precedents and the application of the reverse charge mechanism, ultimately granting the refund to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1219 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360655</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ordering the refund of the service tax amount paid by the appellants. It held that the amount paid under the reverse charge mechanism was not subject to limitation provisions on service tax refunds. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply as the burden of the tax was not passed on to others. The decision was based on legal precedents and the application of the reverse charge mechanism, ultimately granting the refund to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>