<?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 (4) TMI 452 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326338</link>
    <description>Export refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was allowed for port services, GTA, CHA and courier services where the invoices or debit notes, though not in the preferred form, contained sufficient particulars to establish a documentary nexus with the export transaction and tax payment, subject to verification of the eligible quantum. Refund was denied for cleaning activity and technical inspection/testing services because the notification imposed mandatory conditions, including prescribed agreement requirements and, for cleaning services, accreditation of the service provider; absence of such substantive evidence could not be treated as a mere procedural defect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=423585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 452 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326338</link>
      <description>Export refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was allowed for port services, GTA, CHA and courier services where the invoices or debit notes, though not in the preferred form, contained sufficient particulars to establish a documentary nexus with the export transaction and tax payment, subject to verification of the eligible quantum. Refund was denied for cleaning activity and technical inspection/testing services because the notification imposed mandatory conditions, including prescribed agreement requirements and, for cleaning services, accreditation of the service provider; absence of such substantive evidence could not be treated as a mere procedural defect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>