<?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>2025 (6) TMI 683 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772570</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chandigarh dismissed the appellant&#039;s refund claim of Rs. 51,83,156/- for service tax paid under Business Auxiliary Service category. The appellant claimed services were export of services not subject to service tax, but had filed self-assessed returns showing tax liability without modification before claiming refund. The Tribunal followed the Delhi HC judgment in BT (India) Pvt Ltd case, recently upheld by SC, which rejected similar refund claims. The appeal was dismissed and impugned order upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 May 2025 10:34:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=828266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 683 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772570</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chandigarh dismissed the appellant&#039;s refund claim of Rs. 51,83,156/- for service tax paid under Business Auxiliary Service category. The appellant claimed services were export of services not subject to service tax, but had filed self-assessed returns showing tax liability without modification before claiming refund. The Tribunal followed the Delhi HC judgment in BT (India) Pvt Ltd case, recently upheld by SC, which rejected similar refund claims. The appeal was dismissed and impugned order upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>