<?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>2013 (7) TMI 529 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235371</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for export-related services used up to the port area was treated as admissible where the services formed part of the export chain. The settled approach extended the place of removal in export transactions to the port, so services such as CHA, cargo handling, courier, and clearing and forwarding could qualify as input services. A refund notification for specified export services, operating subject to conditions including a bar on Cenvat credit, was treated as an alternative mechanism and not a basis to deny otherwise admissible credit merely because refund could have been claimed instead.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 529 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235371</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for export-related services used up to the port area was treated as admissible where the services formed part of the export chain. The settled approach extended the place of removal in export transactions to the port, so services such as CHA, cargo handling, courier, and clearing and forwarding could qualify as input services. A refund notification for specified export services, operating subject to conditions including a bar on Cenvat credit, was treated as an alternative mechanism and not a basis to deny otherwise admissible credit merely because refund could have been claimed instead.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>