<?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 (3) TMI 138 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257202</link>
    <description>Questions on the taxability of services used or wholly consumed in a Special Economic Zone, and on refund or exemption under the relevant notifications, were treated as matters having a direct bearing on the rate of duty. The dispute was not confined to a bare refund claim because it turned on whether the services were exempt or taxable and whether refund could be claimed under the notifications or under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. On that basis, the controversy fell within matters relating to rate of duty, and the preliminary objection to High Court jurisdiction was upheld; the appeals were not maintainable before the High Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=377977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 138 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257202</link>
      <description>Questions on the taxability of services used or wholly consumed in a Special Economic Zone, and on refund or exemption under the relevant notifications, were treated as matters having a direct bearing on the rate of duty. The dispute was not confined to a bare refund claim because it turned on whether the services were exempt or taxable and whether refund could be claimed under the notifications or under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. On that basis, the controversy fell within matters relating to rate of duty, and the preliminary objection to High Court jurisdiction was upheld; the appeals were not maintainable before the High Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>