<?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>2022 (2) TMI 139 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417888</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order rejecting the refund claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Act. It held that the refund claim was filed within the prescribed time limit of one year from the date of the adjudication order in 2019, which confirmed the appellant was not liable to pay service tax. The judgment emphasized that the claim was timely under Section 11B, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2022 06:59:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=669281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 139 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417888</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order rejecting the refund claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Act. It held that the refund claim was filed within the prescribed time limit of one year from the date of the adjudication order in 2019, which confirmed the appellant was not liable to pay service tax. The judgment emphasized that the claim was timely under Section 11B, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>