<?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 1049 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325865</link>
    <description>Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit for exported services was held admissible under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 because the services were rendered to customers outside India and the credit related to input services used for those exports. The appellate authority correctly applied the Rule 5 formula, excluded non-eligible receipts from export turnover, and recalculated the refund accordingly. The claim was also held not to be governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because Rule 5 itself prescribed the relevant limitation and conditions. The further refund granted in appeal was therefore upheld and the limitation objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1049 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325865</link>
      <description>Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit for exported services was held admissible under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 because the services were rendered to customers outside India and the credit related to input services used for those exports. The appellate authority correctly applied the Rule 5 formula, excluded non-eligible receipts from export turnover, and recalculated the refund accordingly. The claim was also held not to be governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because Rule 5 itself prescribed the relevant limitation and conditions. The further refund granted in appeal was therefore upheld and the limitation objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>