<?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>2007 (8) TMI 177 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2782</link>
    <description>Notification No. 18/2002-ST linked exemption from service tax on import of technology to payment of Research and Development Cess under section 3 of the Research and Development Cess Act, 1986. Where the statutory cess was in fact paid and the cess-administering authority had not objected to the mode or timing of payment, delayed payment of the cess did not, by itself, defeat entitlement to the exemption. On that basis, the corresponding refund claim was admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 177 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2782</link>
      <description>Notification No. 18/2002-ST linked exemption from service tax on import of technology to payment of Research and Development Cess under section 3 of the Research and Development Cess Act, 1986. Where the statutory cess was in fact paid and the cess-administering authority had not objected to the mode or timing of payment, delayed payment of the cess did not, by itself, defeat entitlement to the exemption. On that basis, the corresponding refund claim was admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>