<?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 (9) TMI 568 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251542</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the services provided by the appellants&#039; subsidiaries outside India did not qualify as services provided from India under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Consequently, the appellants were deemed ineligible for a refund for the period before 27.02.2010. The Court also affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s interpretation of Section 66A, stating it does not apply to the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Additionally, the Court dismissed the appellants&#039; alternative claim for a refund under Section 11B due to procedural non-compliance. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2019 12:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 568 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251542</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the services provided by the appellants&#039; subsidiaries outside India did not qualify as services provided from India under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Consequently, the appellants were deemed ineligible for a refund for the period before 27.02.2010. The Court also affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s interpretation of Section 66A, stating it does not apply to the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Additionally, the Court dismissed the appellants&#039; alternative claim for a refund under Section 11B due to procedural non-compliance. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>