<?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 409 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212752</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit was treated as admissible on service tax paid for transporting empty containers from the yard to the factory for stuffing export goods, because that movement formed part of the export transportation chain. Credit was also allowed on transportation of stuffed containers from the factory to the port of export, as the service was connected with export activity and was covered by Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 for transport from the place of removal to the port. The fact that the export was on FOB basis and the charges were included in export value did not defeat credit merely because the amounts were not separately itemised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186156" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 409 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212752</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit was treated as admissible on service tax paid for transporting empty containers from the yard to the factory for stuffing export goods, because that movement formed part of the export transportation chain. Credit was also allowed on transportation of stuffed containers from the factory to the port of export, as the service was connected with export activity and was covered by Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 for transport from the place of removal to the port. The fact that the export was on FOB basis and the charges were included in export value did not defeat credit merely because the amounts were not separately itemised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>