<?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>2009 (2) TMI 43 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32801</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the orders rejecting the refund claims in both appeals, emphasizing the application of the unjust enrichment principle due to the nature of the expenses incurred by the appellants in both scenarios. The tribunal held that the expenses were not related to consulting engineering services, and thus not subject to service tax, leading to the dismissal of the refund claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71439" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 43 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32801</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the orders rejecting the refund claims in both appeals, emphasizing the application of the unjust enrichment principle due to the nature of the expenses incurred by the appellants in both scenarios. The tribunal held that the expenses were not related to consulting engineering services, and thus not subject to service tax, leading to the dismissal of the refund claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>