<?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 1212 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367476</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal directed re-adjudication by the authority to allow the appellant to substantiate their refund claim on admissibility. The Commissioner (Appeals) order denying the refund was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, requiring the appellant to produce relevant documents for review.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=535239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1212 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367476</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal directed re-adjudication by the authority to allow the appellant to substantiate their refund claim on admissibility. The Commissioner (Appeals) order denying the refund was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, requiring the appellant to produce relevant documents for review.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>