<?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 (8) TMI 387 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384198</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s stay application and upheld the liability judgment in favor of the respondent regarding service tax on foreign remittances. However, the Tribunal ruled against the respondent on the limitation period for refund claims and the treatment of service tax deposits and Cenvat credit. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory provisions for refund claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2019 08:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582873" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 387 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384198</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s stay application and upheld the liability judgment in favor of the respondent regarding service tax on foreign remittances. However, the Tribunal ruled against the respondent on the limitation period for refund claims and the treatment of service tax deposits and Cenvat credit. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory provisions for refund claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>