<?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 (3) TMI 117 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244660</link>
    <description>International inbound roaming services were treated as export of services because they were rendered to a foreign telecom service provider outside India, making the assessee eligible for refund of service tax paid on input services under the export refund framework. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was considered inapplicable to such export-related refunds in view of the statutory exemption for export transactions. For limitation, the one-year refund period under the governing service tax refund scheme was held to apply, even though the notification did not expressly state a limit, so some claims required verification for time-bar while others were treated as within time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 117 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244660</link>
      <description>International inbound roaming services were treated as export of services because they were rendered to a foreign telecom service provider outside India, making the assessee eligible for refund of service tax paid on input services under the export refund framework. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was considered inapplicable to such export-related refunds in view of the statutory exemption for export transactions. For limitation, the one-year refund period under the governing service tax refund scheme was held to apply, even though the notification did not expressly state a limit, so some claims required verification for time-bar while others were treated as within time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>