<?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>2013 (7) TMI 1112 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274536</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Revenue&#039;s demand for Rs. 2,83,97,950/-, related to service tax refunds by an insurance company to insured individuals and intermediaries. The Tribunal disagreed with disallowing adjustments for refunds directly to insured due to missing verification documents, but accepted the appellant&#039;s argument on refunds through intermediaries. Emphasizing the absence of specific refund methods in Service Tax Rules, the Tribunal remanded the case for re-verification, stressing the need for evidence of revenue loss. The impugned order was overturned, and the case was remitted for fresh adjudication, allowing the appellant a chance to defend against the Revenue&#039;s claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:09:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=531374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 1112 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274536</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Revenue&#039;s demand for Rs. 2,83,97,950/-, related to service tax refunds by an insurance company to insured individuals and intermediaries. The Tribunal disagreed with disallowing adjustments for refunds directly to insured due to missing verification documents, but accepted the appellant&#039;s argument on refunds through intermediaries. Emphasizing the absence of specific refund methods in Service Tax Rules, the Tribunal remanded the case for re-verification, stressing the need for evidence of revenue loss. The impugned order was overturned, and the case was remitted for fresh adjudication, allowing the appellant a chance to defend against the Revenue&#039;s claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274536</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>