<?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>2008 (5) TMI 68 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30438</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal and remanding the matter to quantify the refund amount correctly. The respondent was deemed eligible for a refund as a service provider, not time-barred by limitation, and had provided sufficient evidence to support the claim without unjust enrichment. The decision was pronounced on 15-5-2008.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 68 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30438</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal and remanding the matter to quantify the refund amount correctly. The respondent was deemed eligible for a refund as a service provider, not time-barred by limitation, and had provided sufficient evidence to support the claim without unjust enrichment. The decision was pronounced on 15-5-2008.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30438</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>