<?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 618 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340115</link>
    <description>Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit was considered admissible for disputed input services where a direct nexus with export and customization activities was found. Fixed asset insurance was treated as insurance of capital assets used in the business, inward transportation of headsets was covered as input service because the headsets were essential for BPO operations, and information technology software service received from the parent entity was accepted as used for providing customized software services to a domestic client, with tax paid under reverse charge. Earlier findings in the assessee&#039;s own case were also relied on for the remaining services, so the rejection of refund was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2017 18:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461226" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 618 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340115</link>
      <description>Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit was considered admissible for disputed input services where a direct nexus with export and customization activities was found. Fixed asset insurance was treated as insurance of capital assets used in the business, inward transportation of headsets was covered as input service because the headsets were essential for BPO operations, and information technology software service received from the parent entity was accepted as used for providing customized software services to a domestic client, with tax paid under reverse charge. Earlier findings in the assessee&#039;s own case were also relied on for the remaining services, so the rejection of refund was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>