<?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 (12) TMI 813 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336168</link>
    <description>The refund scheme under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was amended with effect from 07.12.2008, changing eligibility for service tax refund on input services for export-related claims. Refunds for exports made before that date were not admissible where drawback had been claimed, while claims for exports made after that date could remain admissible. Because the record covered exports both before and after the amendment date, and also indicated possible advance licence transactions, the claim could not be conclusively decided on the existing material. The matter therefore required de novo reconsideration with supporting evidence and reference to the relevant decisions cited.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:57:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451771" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 813 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336168</link>
      <description>The refund scheme under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was amended with effect from 07.12.2008, changing eligibility for service tax refund on input services for export-related claims. Refunds for exports made before that date were not admissible where drawback had been claimed, while claims for exports made after that date could remain admissible. Because the record covered exports both before and after the amendment date, and also indicated possible advance licence transactions, the claim could not be conclusively decided on the existing material. The matter therefore required de novo reconsideration with supporting evidence and reference to the relevant decisions cited.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>