<?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 (7) TMI 351 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261390</link>
    <description>A refund notification providing for refund of accumulated input service credit on the export turnover to total turnover formula cannot be supplemented by an extra day-wise restriction not found in the text. The authority&#039;s attempt to limit refund by confining eligibility to the few days remaining in the month of the invoice date had no statutory basis, because the notification required application of the prescribed turnover ratio for the relevant period, not proof that the services were rendered only within those days. The full refund admissible under the notification was therefore upheld, and the departmental challenge to the quantum restriction failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 351 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261390</link>
      <description>A refund notification providing for refund of accumulated input service credit on the export turnover to total turnover formula cannot be supplemented by an extra day-wise restriction not found in the text. The authority&#039;s attempt to limit refund by confining eligibility to the few days remaining in the month of the invoice date had no statutory basis, because the notification required application of the prescribed turnover ratio for the relevant period, not proof that the services were rendered only within those days. The full refund admissible under the notification was therefore upheld, and the departmental challenge to the quantum restriction failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>