<?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 (2) TMI 1888 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280704</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant in a case involving double payment of service tax by both the service provider and receiver. The rejection of the refund application on the basis of unjust enrichment was overturned as it was established that the service tax incidence was not passed on to the recipient. The appellant&#039;s appeal was granted, and the order dismissing the appeal was set aside, entitling the appellant to consequential benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=571583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1888 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280704</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant in a case involving double payment of service tax by both the service provider and receiver. The rejection of the refund application on the basis of unjust enrichment was overturned as it was established that the service tax incidence was not passed on to the recipient. The appellant&#039;s appeal was granted, and the order dismissing the appeal was set aside, entitling the appellant to consequential benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>