<?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 (8) TMI 1103 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263186</link>
    <description>Refund of Service Tax on input services used for export of goods was held inadmissible where the prescribed conditions under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. were not met. The claims failed because the contract was not produced, the commission amount was not reflected in the shipping bills, and no satisfactory explanation was given for these deficiencies. Terminal handling charges and carriage services were treated as post-export delivery services at the destination port and therefore fell outside the notification. For the remaining services, the bills did not disclose the nature of service or the amounts paid, so the refund claims were rejected and the order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:51:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1103 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263186</link>
      <description>Refund of Service Tax on input services used for export of goods was held inadmissible where the prescribed conditions under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. were not met. The claims failed because the contract was not produced, the commission amount was not reflected in the shipping bills, and no satisfactory explanation was given for these deficiencies. Terminal handling charges and carriage services were treated as post-export delivery services at the destination port and therefore fell outside the notification. For the remaining services, the bills did not disclose the nature of service or the amounts paid, so the refund claims were rejected and the order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>