<?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>2010 (5) TMI 208 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77253</link>
    <description>A taxable service provider who opts, under an exemption notification, not to avail the exemption and instead pays service tax cannot withdraw that election during the remaining part of the same financial year. The appellant had paid service tax for the first half of the year and then sought to surrender registration in the second half, which was contrary to the notification&#039;s express condition. Because the election once exercised was irrevocable for that financial year and the condition was not satisfied, the claim for exemption and consequential refund failed. The rejection of the refund claim was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 208 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77253</link>
      <description>A taxable service provider who opts, under an exemption notification, not to avail the exemption and instead pays service tax cannot withdraw that election during the remaining part of the same financial year. The appellant had paid service tax for the first half of the year and then sought to surrender registration in the second half, which was contrary to the notification&#039;s express condition. Because the election once exercised was irrevocable for that financial year and the condition was not satisfied, the claim for exemption and consequential refund failed. The rejection of the refund claim was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77253</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>