<?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 (11) TMI 349 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267540</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal regarding the eligibility for a refund of service tax paid on exported services under &#039;Business Auxiliary Services&#039; and &#039;Business Support Services&#039; to entities in Germany and Yugoslavia. The dispute centered on the timeline of filing the refund claim in relation to the receipt of payment for the services exported in December 2009. The Tribunal found the Revenue&#039;s arguments regarding the time limit for filing the refund claim under Notification No.11/2005-ST untenable and concluded that the rejection of the appellant&#039;s refund claim was incorrect. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2016 10:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 349 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267540</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal regarding the eligibility for a refund of service tax paid on exported services under &#039;Business Auxiliary Services&#039; and &#039;Business Support Services&#039; to entities in Germany and Yugoslavia. The dispute centered on the timeline of filing the refund claim in relation to the receipt of payment for the services exported in December 2009. The Tribunal found the Revenue&#039;s arguments regarding the time limit for filing the refund claim under Notification No.11/2005-ST untenable and concluded that the rejection of the appellant&#039;s refund claim was incorrect. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>