<?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 1246 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263329</link>
    <description>Procurement of orders in India for a Japanese foreign client, with commission received in convertible foreign exchange, qualified as export of service under Rule 3(2)(a) because the service was provided from India and used outside India. The effective benefit accrued to the foreign client in Japan, and the fact that the goods were ultimately supplied to customers in India did not change the character of the service. The refund of service tax was therefore correctly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1246 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263329</link>
      <description>Procurement of orders in India for a Japanese foreign client, with commission received in convertible foreign exchange, qualified as export of service under Rule 3(2)(a) because the service was provided from India and used outside India. The effective benefit accrued to the foreign client in Japan, and the fact that the goods were ultimately supplied to customers in India did not change the character of the service. The refund of service tax was therefore correctly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>