<?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 453 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259579</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax on input services used for export of services cannot be denied solely because SEZ competent authority approval was issued after the refund application, where the approval application had been filed in advance and before completion of the export transaction. The delayed issuance of approval was treated as an administrative lapse that did not extinguish an exemption entitlement already accrued on the facts. The reasoning was supported by an earlier decision granting relief despite later permission. The refund claim was therefore considered maintainable under Notification No. 17/2011-ST dated 01/03/2011, with consequential relief stated to follow in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 12:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 453 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259579</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax on input services used for export of services cannot be denied solely because SEZ competent authority approval was issued after the refund application, where the approval application had been filed in advance and before completion of the export transaction. The delayed issuance of approval was treated as an administrative lapse that did not extinguish an exemption entitlement already accrued on the facts. The reasoning was supported by an earlier decision granting relief despite later permission. The refund claim was therefore considered maintainable under Notification No. 17/2011-ST dated 01/03/2011, with consequential relief stated to follow in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>