<?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 (12) TMI 882 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269578</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax on services used for authorised SEZ operations was held admissible where the Approval Committee had certified the services as relating to authorised operations. A contrary departmental view on nexus was rejected, since the same issue had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s favour on identical facts. The availability of an exemption for services wholly consumed within the SEZ did not, by itself, defeat refund where tax had already been paid. The Tribunal therefore allowed the appeals and granted consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 882 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269578</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax on services used for authorised SEZ operations was held admissible where the Approval Committee had certified the services as relating to authorised operations. A contrary departmental view on nexus was rejected, since the same issue had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s favour on identical facts. The availability of an exemption for services wholly consumed within the SEZ did not, by itself, defeat refund where tax had already been paid. The Tribunal therefore allowed the appeals and granted consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>