<?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 1527 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336882</link>
    <description>Brokerage services rendered to institutional investors situated abroad and paid for in convertible foreign exchange were treated as export of service, so service tax was not leviable on those services. On that basis, the refund claim was admissible, and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply to the exported-service refund. Rejection of the claim on unjust enrichment grounds was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2017 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1527 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336882</link>
      <description>Brokerage services rendered to institutional investors situated abroad and paid for in convertible foreign exchange were treated as export of service, so service tax was not leviable on those services. On that basis, the refund claim was admissible, and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply to the exported-service refund. Rejection of the claim on unjust enrichment grounds was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>