<?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 221 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77412</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claim for service tax paid under protest. The appellant&#039;s services were considered export services exempt from service tax as the benefits accrued outside India. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of analyzing the place of service delivery and usage in determining tax liability, setting aside the rejection based on time limitation and inadmissibility under a specific notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 221 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77412</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claim for service tax paid under protest. The appellant&#039;s services were considered export services exempt from service tax as the benefits accrued outside India. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of analyzing the place of service delivery and usage in determining tax liability, setting aside the rejection based on time limitation and inadmissibility under a specific notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>