<?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 (8) TMI 227 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33236</link>
    <description>Classification of the exported service, the scope of the amended refund notification, and the adequacy of supporting invoices and documents required fresh examination. The Tribunal noted that the cited precedents were relevant to the dispute and that the Original Authority had not properly scrutinised the documentary record. It therefore remanded the matter for de novo consideration after applying the cited decisions and verifying all invoices and supporting documents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 227 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33236</link>
      <description>Classification of the exported service, the scope of the amended refund notification, and the adequacy of supporting invoices and documents required fresh examination. The Tribunal noted that the cited precedents were relevant to the dispute and that the Original Authority had not properly scrutinised the documentary record. It therefore remanded the matter for de novo consideration after applying the cited decisions and verifying all invoices and supporting documents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>