<?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 (1) TMI 203 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34107</link>
    <description>A departmental circular issued after the relevant period could not be used to deny or revise a refund already sanctioned for January to March 2005. The refund had been granted on the basis of declarations and certificates from the GTA, and the record did not justify disturbing that original sanction. In the absence of any demand notice to recover the amount already refunded, the revisionary order was unsustainable and was set aside, with the original refund order restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72735" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 203 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34107</link>
      <description>A departmental circular issued after the relevant period could not be used to deny or revise a refund already sanctioned for January to March 2005. The refund had been granted on the basis of declarations and certificates from the GTA, and the record did not justify disturbing that original sanction. In the absence of any demand notice to recover the amount already refunded, the revisionary order was unsustainable and was set aside, with the original refund order restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>