<?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 (4) TMI 385 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341415</link>
    <description>A refund claim for service tax on export-related services, originally subject to a 60-day filing limit under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., was considered in light of a later beneficial relaxation under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. and a Board clarification allowing the one-year limit to apply to earlier exports. The time-bar objection was not upheld in full because the later relaxation could be examined for prior exports where the clarification so permitted. However, claims falling beyond one year from the date of export remained time-barred and required re-examination by the Original Authority. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Apr 2017 07:33:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465248" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 385 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341415</link>
      <description>A refund claim for service tax on export-related services, originally subject to a 60-day filing limit under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., was considered in light of a later beneficial relaxation under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. and a Board clarification allowing the one-year limit to apply to earlier exports. The time-bar objection was not upheld in full because the later relaxation could be examined for prior exports where the clarification so permitted. However, claims falling beyond one year from the date of export remained time-barred and required re-examination by the Original Authority. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>