<?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 (11) TMI 339 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429915</link>
    <description>The tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 due to foreign remittances in different names. The matter was remanded to the original authority for a detailed review based on previous refund orders, allowing the appeals by remand. The tribunal emphasized the need for clarity on remittance details and directed the original authority to expedite the review process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2022 09:19:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695165" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 339 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429915</link>
      <description>The tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 due to foreign remittances in different names. The matter was remanded to the original authority for a detailed review based on previous refund orders, allowing the appeals by remand. The tribunal emphasized the need for clarity on remittance details and directed the original authority to expedite the review process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429915</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>