<?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 (8) TMI 611 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426372</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed all four appeals, setting aside the denial of part of the refund claims for the four quarters in 2016 under Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT). The Respondent-Department was directed to pay the refund amounts requested by the Appellant within two months, emphasizing adherence to established legal principles in determining the limitation period for refund claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2022 09:04:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=687942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 611 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426372</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed all four appeals, setting aside the denial of part of the refund claims for the four quarters in 2016 under Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT). The Respondent-Department was directed to pay the refund amounts requested by the Appellant within two months, emphasizing adherence to established legal principles in determining the limitation period for refund claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>