<?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>2023 (9) TMI 928 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443306</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the rejection of the refund claim by the lower authorities based on limitation and unjust enrichment. It held that the appellant had borne the tax incidence and was entitled to the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for exceeding the scope of the show cause notice. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to disburse the refund within 45 days with interest as per rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2023 08:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726719" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 928 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443306</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the rejection of the refund claim by the lower authorities based on limitation and unjust enrichment. It held that the appellant had borne the tax incidence and was entitled to the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for exceeding the scope of the show cause notice. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to disburse the refund within 45 days with interest as per rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>