<?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>2012 (4) TMI 407 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212746</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was upheld for export-linked services used up to the port, including port services, terminal handling charges, CHA services, GTA services and wharfage charges. The Tribunal applied earlier rulings that services integrally connected with unloading, handling and movement of export cargo at the port fall within the export service chain, and that tax paid under the relevant service category cannot be denied at the recipient&#039;s end merely because the services are described under different heads. For FOB exports, the port was treated as the place of removal, so services used up to that point remained eligible for refund. Revenue&#039;s objection was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 407 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212746</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was upheld for export-linked services used up to the port, including port services, terminal handling charges, CHA services, GTA services and wharfage charges. The Tribunal applied earlier rulings that services integrally connected with unloading, handling and movement of export cargo at the port fall within the export service chain, and that tax paid under the relevant service category cannot be denied at the recipient&#039;s end merely because the services are described under different heads. For FOB exports, the port was treated as the place of removal, so services used up to that point remained eligible for refund. Revenue&#039;s objection was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>