<?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 1147 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430723</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the purchased flats and shops constituted a &quot;building&quot; under entry 13(c) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, granting the appellant eligibility for exemption. The tribunal upheld the timeliness of the refund claim and dismissed the unjust enrichment argument. The decision favored the appellant, affirming their entitlement to the claimed exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2022 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 1147 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430723</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the purchased flats and shops constituted a &quot;building&quot; under entry 13(c) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, granting the appellant eligibility for exemption. The tribunal upheld the timeliness of the refund claim and dismissed the unjust enrichment argument. The decision favored the appellant, affirming their entitlement to the claimed exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>