<?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>2015 (2) TMI 146 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256146</link>
    <description>The appeals challenging the rejection of refund claims by the Commissioner for an SEZ unit regarding Service Tax paid on input services were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the SEZ Act&#039;s provisions override other Acts, emphasizing that services utilized for authorized operations within the SEZ make the Service Tax refundable. It clarified that the condition of refund admissibility excluding services wholly consumed within the SEZ cannot nullify the SEZ Act&#039;s overriding provisions. The Tribunal highlighted the recipient&#039;s right to refund under Notification No. 9/2009 and prevented denial of refund for procedural infractions, ultimately granting consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2015 10:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 146 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256146</link>
      <description>The appeals challenging the rejection of refund claims by the Commissioner for an SEZ unit regarding Service Tax paid on input services were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the SEZ Act&#039;s provisions override other Acts, emphasizing that services utilized for authorized operations within the SEZ make the Service Tax refundable. It clarified that the condition of refund admissibility excluding services wholly consumed within the SEZ cannot nullify the SEZ Act&#039;s overriding provisions. The Tribunal highlighted the recipient&#039;s right to refund under Notification No. 9/2009 and prevented denial of refund for procedural infractions, ultimately granting consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>