<?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>2016 (3) TMI 100 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272288</link>
    <description>The appellant, a manufacturer exporting goods, was disentitled to exemption benefits under Notification No. 18/2009-ST for service tax remittances on transportation of exported goods. The adjudication order disallowed the exemption due to failure to fulfill conditions, lack of relevant shipping bill copies, and time-barred claims. The appellant was held liable for interest and penalties but not under Section 76. Both the primary and appellate authorities rejected the appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely submission and non-fulfillment of notification conditions, despite the use of GTA services. The dismissal was based on solid findings regarding the limitation aspect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=418925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 100 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272288</link>
      <description>The appellant, a manufacturer exporting goods, was disentitled to exemption benefits under Notification No. 18/2009-ST for service tax remittances on transportation of exported goods. The adjudication order disallowed the exemption due to failure to fulfill conditions, lack of relevant shipping bill copies, and time-barred claims. The appellant was held liable for interest and penalties but not under Section 76. Both the primary and appellate authorities rejected the appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely submission and non-fulfillment of notification conditions, despite the use of GTA services. The dismissal was based on solid findings regarding the limitation aspect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>