<?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 (11) TMI 566 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388317</link>
    <description>The court upheld the decision on unjust enrichment, emphasizing the lack of evidence to establish non-passing on of the service tax burden. The judgment concluded that the incidence of unjust enrichment had been passed on to the service recipient due to the contractual arrangements, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal based on unjust enrichment grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2020 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 566 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388317</link>
      <description>The court upheld the decision on unjust enrichment, emphasizing the lack of evidence to establish non-passing on of the service tax burden. The judgment concluded that the incidence of unjust enrichment had been passed on to the service recipient due to the contractual arrangements, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal based on unjust enrichment grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>