<?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 (5) TMI 1249 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422989</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the refund claim based on the clear prohibition in Section 109 of the Finance Act, 2013. The appeal was dismissed, and the tribunal concluded that the decision in Shabina Abraham did not apply to the present case due to the specific statutory bar on refunds under the VCES.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 May 2022 08:36:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=680315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1249 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422989</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the refund claim based on the clear prohibition in Section 109 of the Finance Act, 2013. The appeal was dismissed, and the tribunal concluded that the decision in Shabina Abraham did not apply to the present case due to the specific statutory bar on refunds under the VCES.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422989</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>