<?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>2014 (1) TMI 1098 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242883</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges for export-related services was treated as admissible under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. where the invoices showed tax payment and the exporter&#039;s claim was otherwise in order. The analysis states that the service provider&#039;s registration or classification, and the absence of verification of the provider&#039;s registration certificate, could not by themselves justify rejection of the refund claim. Procedural violations by the service provider were to be dealt with separately, so the rejection was unsustainable and the exporter was held entitled to refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1098 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242883</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax paid on terminal handling charges for export-related services was treated as admissible under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. where the invoices showed tax payment and the exporter&#039;s claim was otherwise in order. The analysis states that the service provider&#039;s registration or classification, and the absence of verification of the provider&#039;s registration certificate, could not by themselves justify rejection of the refund claim. Procedural violations by the service provider were to be dealt with separately, so the rejection was unsustainable and the exporter was held entitled to refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>