<?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 (10) TMI 581 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333561</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax on export-related services under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was held admissible where earlier Tribunal decisions had already recognised such claims. The Tribunal rejected denial merely because the refund application was supported by debit notes, and it also rejected the objection that separate proof was required to show the service provider had deposited the tax with the Revenue. Claims relating to cleaning activities and technical inspection and certification services were not pressed, and a minor third-party export item was not contested in one matter. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for grant of refund wherever admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 14:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 581 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333561</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax on export-related services under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was held admissible where earlier Tribunal decisions had already recognised such claims. The Tribunal rejected denial merely because the refund application was supported by debit notes, and it also rejected the objection that separate proof was required to show the service provider had deposited the tax with the Revenue. Claims relating to cleaning activities and technical inspection and certification services were not pressed, and a minor third-party export item was not contested in one matter. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for grant of refund wherever admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>