Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For an SEZ unit claiming refund of service tax on input services used for authorised operations, the SEZ Act's exemption scheme prevails over service tax notifications issued under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal applied the settled position that section 26 of the SEZ Act and the SEZ Rules govern the exemption, and that inconsistent notification-based restrictions cannot be imposed on SEZ refunds. Accordingly, the one-year limitation in the service tax notifications was held inapplicable, the rejection as time-barred was set aside, and the refund appeal succeeded with consequential relief.
For an SEZ unit claiming refund of service tax on input services used for authorised operations, the SEZ Act's exemption scheme prevails over service tax notifications issued under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal applied the settled position that section 26 of the SEZ Act and the SEZ Rules govern the exemption, and that inconsistent notification-based restrictions cannot be imposed on SEZ refunds. Accordingly, the one-year limitation in the service tax notifications was held inapplicable, the rejection as time-barred was set aside, and the refund appeal succeeded with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
