<?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>2026 (3) TMI 150 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787395</link>
    <description>Issue concerns refund claims under SEZ-related notification rejected as time-barred though show-cause notices did not plead limitation. Legal principle applied: adjudicatory orders must be founded on grounds pleaded in the show-cause notice, and an unpleaded ground (limitation) cannot be invoked to sustain rejection. Outcome: rejection orders were set aside and appeals allowed because the limitation ground was not alleged in the notices; defect in pleading was outcome-determinative.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2026 08:41:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 150 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787395</link>
      <description>Issue concerns refund claims under SEZ-related notification rejected as time-barred though show-cause notices did not plead limitation. Legal principle applied: adjudicatory orders must be founded on grounds pleaded in the show-cause notice, and an unpleaded ground (limitation) cannot be invoked to sustain rejection. Outcome: rejection orders were set aside and appeals allowed because the limitation ground was not alleged in the notices; defect in pleading was outcome-determinative.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>