<?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 (4) TMI 366 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420700</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claim based on the correct classification of services under works contract and overriding the time bar limitation under Section 11B. The judgment emphasized that mistaken payments not constituting duty do not fall under the limitation provision, ensuring that the appellant received the refund rightfully due to them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2022 18:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=675431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 366 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420700</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claim based on the correct classification of services under works contract and overriding the time bar limitation under Section 11B. The judgment emphasized that mistaken payments not constituting duty do not fall under the limitation provision, ensuring that the appellant received the refund rightfully due to them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>