<?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 (5) TMI 57 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259183</link>
    <description>Refund under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. was held admissible for terminal handling charges and Bill of Lading fees used in export of goods, even though the service provider had not paid tax under the exact service category and its registration did not cover the services. The Tribunal accepted the clarification in Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST that exporters may claim refund of specified taxable services actually received and used for exports without verifying the provider&#039;s registration certificate. It also followed earlier judicial views that procedural lapses by the service provider do not defeat an otherwise valid exporter refund claim. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 May 2015 10:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383618" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 57 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259183</link>
      <description>Refund under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. was held admissible for terminal handling charges and Bill of Lading fees used in export of goods, even though the service provider had not paid tax under the exact service category and its registration did not cover the services. The Tribunal accepted the clarification in Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST that exporters may claim refund of specified taxable services actually received and used for exports without verifying the provider&#039;s registration certificate. It also followed earlier judicial views that procedural lapses by the service provider do not defeat an otherwise valid exporter refund claim. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259183</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>