<?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 (7) TMI 708 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249672</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection on jurisdiction and classified the services of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. as &#039;Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services&#039;. It determined that GE ITC was not merely an extended arm of GE USA and disagreed with the Revenue&#039;s argument on the method of determining consideration. The Tribunal found the appellant compliant with Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 and directed the original authority to verify the nexus between input and output services for refund sanctioning within three months. The impugned order was set aside, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 708 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249672</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection on jurisdiction and classified the services of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. as &#039;Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services&#039;. It determined that GE ITC was not merely an extended arm of GE USA and disagreed with the Revenue&#039;s argument on the method of determining consideration. The Tribunal found the appellant compliant with Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 and directed the original authority to verify the nexus between input and output services for refund sanctioning within three months. The impugned order was set aside, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>