<?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>2016 (2) TMI 1265 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284742</link>
    <description>Refund limitation under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) turned on whether the claim was time-barred and whether the relevant date for filing was the date of export of service or the date the invoice was raised. The Bombay High Court admitted the appeal on the stated substantial question of law, but made no final adjudication on the merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2019 10:13:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=596630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 1265 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284742</link>
      <description>Refund limitation under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) turned on whether the claim was time-barred and whether the relevant date for filing was the date of export of service or the date the invoice was raised. The Bombay High Court admitted the appeal on the stated substantial question of law, but made no final adjudication on the merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>