<?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>2024 (8) TMI 476 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756772</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax paid suo motu on ocean freight was examined under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the exclusion under Rule 9(1)(b) or Rule 9(1)(bb) was not found applicable because there was no demand notice or adjudication recording suppression of facts. As the factual documents and verification issues had not been examined, the refund claim required limited remand to the Adjudicating Authority for factual scrutiny and further processing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2024 08:55:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763487" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 476 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756772</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax paid suo motu on ocean freight was examined under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the exclusion under Rule 9(1)(b) or Rule 9(1)(bb) was not found applicable because there was no demand notice or adjudication recording suppression of facts. As the factual documents and verification issues had not been examined, the refund claim required limited remand to the Adjudicating Authority for factual scrutiny and further processing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>