<?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>2019 (2) TMI 1252 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375625</link>
    <description>The Tribunal remitted all appeals to the adjudicating authority for a detailed review. It emphasized that services excluded under Rule 2(l) cannot claim credit, while lack of nexus alone cannot justify denial of refund. The authority was directed to consider the appellant&#039;s ability to produce necessary documents and allow credit based on substantiated claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2019 06:11:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=559361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 1252 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375625</link>
      <description>The Tribunal remitted all appeals to the adjudicating authority for a detailed review. It emphasized that services excluded under Rule 2(l) cannot claim credit, while lack of nexus alone cannot justify denial of refund. The authority was directed to consider the appellant&#039;s ability to produce necessary documents and allow credit based on substantiated claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>