<?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>2017 (2) TMI 1153 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339453</link>
    <description>Refund of Service Tax on Customs House Agent services used for exports was treated as admissible under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., because the service had been taxed under the relevant category and the record showed membership credentials of the Bombay Customs House Agents&#039; Association. The absence of a CHA licence was held not to defeat the refund claim where the Revenue did not dispute payment of Service Tax under the applicable head or the fact that the provider was not separately registered as a CHA. The benefit intended for export-related services could therefore not be denied on that procedural objection, and the refund claim was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:58:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1153 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339453</link>
      <description>Refund of Service Tax on Customs House Agent services used for exports was treated as admissible under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., because the service had been taxed under the relevant category and the record showed membership credentials of the Bombay Customs House Agents&#039; Association. The absence of a CHA licence was held not to defeat the refund claim where the Revenue did not dispute payment of Service Tax under the applicable head or the fact that the provider was not separately registered as a CHA. The benefit intended for export-related services could therefore not be denied on that procedural objection, and the refund claim was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>