<?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>2011 (9) TMI 386 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207581</link>
    <description>Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on input services used for export of output service was accepted on merits, with only two services excluded for lack of nexus. The remaining issue was procedural compliance with the Board&#039;s requirement for a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate. A limited remand to the original authority for verification of that certificate and sanction of refund was treated as proper, because the substantive entitlement had already been upheld and the assessee did not object to the procedural direction. The Revenue&#039;s challenge to the appellate order was therefore not sustained, and the refund claim remained alive subject to compliance with the prescribed procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 386 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207581</link>
      <description>Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on input services used for export of output service was accepted on merits, with only two services excluded for lack of nexus. The remaining issue was procedural compliance with the Board&#039;s requirement for a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate. A limited remand to the original authority for verification of that certificate and sanction of refund was treated as proper, because the substantive entitlement had already been upheld and the assessee did not object to the procedural direction. The Revenue&#039;s challenge to the appellate order was therefore not sustained, and the refund claim remained alive subject to compliance with the prescribed procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>