<?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 (3) TMI 567 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340064</link>
    <description>The expression &quot;in relation to transport of export goods&quot; in Notification No. 41/2007-ST was treated as wide enough to cover GTA service used for moving empty containers from the yard to the factory for stuffing export cargo, so refund could not be denied on that ground. Refund also could not be refused merely for non-production of some supporting documents where the export invoice and connected records disclosed cargo, container and vehicle particulars; entitlement had to be tested on the relevant records, subject to verification. The impugned orders were set aside and the refund claims were remitted to the Original Authority for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:52:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 567 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340064</link>
      <description>The expression &quot;in relation to transport of export goods&quot; in Notification No. 41/2007-ST was treated as wide enough to cover GTA service used for moving empty containers from the yard to the factory for stuffing export cargo, so refund could not be denied on that ground. Refund also could not be refused merely for non-production of some supporting documents where the export invoice and connected records disclosed cargo, container and vehicle particulars; entitlement had to be tested on the relevant records, subject to verification. The impugned orders were set aside and the refund claims were remitted to the Original Authority for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>