<?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 (8) TMI 621 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365149</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund benefit for Service Tax paid on outdoor catering service. The appellant&#039;s argument that compliance with the Factory Act should qualify for the exemption under the notification was rejected. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases and emphasized the specific refund claim under Section 11B. As the outdoor caterer did not meet the conditions of the notification by not serving in specified establishments, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the authorities&#039; decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2018 08:14:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 621 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365149</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund benefit for Service Tax paid on outdoor catering service. The appellant&#039;s argument that compliance with the Factory Act should qualify for the exemption under the notification was rejected. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases and emphasized the specific refund claim under Section 11B. As the outdoor caterer did not meet the conditions of the notification by not serving in specified establishments, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the authorities&#039; decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>