<?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>2021 (8) TMI 239 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410661</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, granting them the benefit of the refund of service tax paid under the Reverse Charge Mechanism. The Tribunal held that the refund claims should be considered under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, entitling the appellants to the refund of the service tax paid. The impugned order rejecting the refund application was set aside, and the appellants were successful in their claim for the refund of service tax paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jan 2022 13:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=651833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 239 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410661</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, granting them the benefit of the refund of service tax paid under the Reverse Charge Mechanism. The Tribunal held that the refund claims should be considered under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, entitling the appellants to the refund of the service tax paid. The impugned order rejecting the refund application was set aside, and the appellants were successful in their claim for the refund of service tax paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>