<?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 (5) TMI 105 - CESTAT, CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342367</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax paid on foreign commission agent services used for export of goods was considered admissible under Notification No. 41/2007-ST where tax payment on the eligible export-related service was established. The objection that the recipient had not paid the tax before filing the refund claim was not treated as determinative. On that basis, the refund claim was sustained and the procedural objection as to the manner or timing of payment did not defeat entitlement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 105 - CESTAT, CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342367</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax paid on foreign commission agent services used for export of goods was considered admissible under Notification No. 41/2007-ST where tax payment on the eligible export-related service was established. The objection that the recipient had not paid the tax before filing the refund claim was not treated as determinative. On that basis, the refund claim was sustained and the procedural objection as to the manner or timing of payment did not defeat entitlement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>