<?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 (6) TMI 516 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328807</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax under the export-related notification cannot be denied on technical objections alone where the services are otherwise linked to export activity and the substantive conditions are satisfied. Registration of the service provider under a different category and the absence of port-service tax proof did not, by themselves, defeat refund for THS charges, bills of lading charges, origin haulage charges and repo charges. The same approach applied to customs house agent services: missing invoice particulars such as description of goods or expense details were not sufficient to reject refund when the services were identifiable as export-related input services. The disputed refund claims were therefore allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:41:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 516 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328807</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax under the export-related notification cannot be denied on technical objections alone where the services are otherwise linked to export activity and the substantive conditions are satisfied. Registration of the service provider under a different category and the absence of port-service tax proof did not, by themselves, defeat refund for THS charges, bills of lading charges, origin haulage charges and repo charges. The same approach applied to customs house agent services: missing invoice particulars such as description of goods or expense details were not sufficient to reject refund when the services were identifiable as export-related input services. The disputed refund claims were therefore allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>