<?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 (6) TMI 1320 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382243</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. It determined that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax for services treated as exports, as per CBEC Circular No. 111/05/2009-ST. Consequently, the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, did not apply. The Tribunal relied on a Delhi HC decision, concluding that the refund claim was not time-barred, thus granting the appellant&#039;s refund claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 17:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=576871" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 1320 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382243</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. It determined that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax for services treated as exports, as per CBEC Circular No. 111/05/2009-ST. Consequently, the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, did not apply. The Tribunal relied on a Delhi HC decision, concluding that the refund claim was not time-barred, thus granting the appellant&#039;s refund claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382243</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>