<?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 (9) TMI 394 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366658</link>
    <description>The Tribunal directed a re-adjudication by the Original adjudicating authority to resolve factual ambiguities in a refund claim rejection case concerning a valuation discrepancy between M/s Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd and Vodafone India Ltd. The appellant claimed a difference in the final transaction value, leading to a duty refund claim, supported by documentation. The respondent argued based on ledger entries indicating higher amounts received. The Tribunal emphasized clarifying the negotiation process and completion timelines, advising a decision within three months and allowing the appellant to submit additional evidence. The appeal was remanded for further proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 394 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366658</link>
      <description>The Tribunal directed a re-adjudication by the Original adjudicating authority to resolve factual ambiguities in a refund claim rejection case concerning a valuation discrepancy between M/s Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd and Vodafone India Ltd. The appellant claimed a difference in the final transaction value, leading to a duty refund claim, supported by documentation. The respondent argued based on ledger entries indicating higher amounts received. The Tribunal emphasized clarifying the negotiation process and completion timelines, advising a decision within three months and allowing the appellant to submit additional evidence. The appeal was remanded for further proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>