<?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 (10) TMI 427 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428869</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund of service tax deposited by mistake on the construction of individual residential houses as they were deemed independent units and not part of a taxable residential complex. The Tribunal overturned the rejection of the refund claims based on unjust enrichment, citing that the appellant bore the tax burden. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was set aside, and the appellant was granted the refund in compliance with the law. All four appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2022 08:26:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=693128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 427 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428869</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund of service tax deposited by mistake on the construction of individual residential houses as they were deemed independent units and not part of a taxable residential complex. The Tribunal overturned the rejection of the refund claims based on unjust enrichment, citing that the appellant bore the tax burden. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was set aside, and the appellant was granted the refund in compliance with the law. All four appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428869</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>