Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2018 2018 2018 (1) Service Tax - 2018 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Service Tax - Case Laws

Showing 181 to 181 of 181 Records

• 2018 (1) TMI 4 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Refund claim - taxes having been paid on certain services provided by it which were not taxable service - time limitation - When the order of the appellate Commissioner is read, it demonstrates that he has only examined the question of admissibility of refund of tax without examining the law relating to levy of service tax? - appellant says that larger Bench of this Tribunal has already decided the issue by its order dated 17.10.2016 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax-III Vs. State Bank of Patiala [2016 (10) TMI 800 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Held that: - It may be stated that while deciding the question referred to the larger Bench, at no stage, pendency of the matter before the Apex Court has been taken into account. When the very scope and ambit of N/N. 22/2006-ST is under sub-judice before the Apex Court, it is premature on the part of the Tribunal to overreach the jurisdiction of the Apex Court - both the matters remanded to the learned adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

1 ....678910