<?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>2012 (12) TMI 1184 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281447</link>
    <description>Refund was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the appellant produced a chartered accountant&#039;s certificate stating that no service tax had been recovered from the service recipient, and the department verified that position by letter. On that basis, the burden of proving that the refund was not hit by unjust enrichment was treated as discharged. The refund claim was therefore maintainable and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2019 18:08:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575787" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 1184 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281447</link>
      <description>Refund was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the appellant produced a chartered accountant&#039;s certificate stating that no service tax had been recovered from the service recipient, and the department verified that position by letter. On that basis, the burden of proving that the refund was not hit by unjust enrichment was treated as discharged. The refund claim was therefore maintainable and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281447</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>