<?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 (11) TMI 256 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208454</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal by a 100% EOU for service tax refund on GTA services related to exported goods, overturning the original authority&#039;s rejection. The appellant successfully challenged the denial of part of the claim, arguing for a refund without re-examination. The Tribunal interpreted &#039;input services&#039; broadly, permitting credits taken before service payment, and clarified that Section 11B does not apply to accumulated credits for refund. The decision upheld the refund for disputed amounts, contingent on verifying service payments for one component, emphasizing the expansive definition of &#039;input services&#039; and the inapplicability of Section 11B to such refunds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181919" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 256 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208454</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal by a 100% EOU for service tax refund on GTA services related to exported goods, overturning the original authority&#039;s rejection. The appellant successfully challenged the denial of part of the claim, arguing for a refund without re-examination. The Tribunal interpreted &#039;input services&#039; broadly, permitting credits taken before service payment, and clarified that Section 11B does not apply to accumulated credits for refund. The decision upheld the refund for disputed amounts, contingent on verifying service payments for one component, emphasizing the expansive definition of &#039;input services&#039; and the inapplicability of Section 11B to such refunds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208454</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>