<?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 1345 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343607</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax paid on specified export-related services under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was treated as admissible even where drawback had also been claimed. The notification framework, read with the later amendment and the drawback notification, was taken to show that the refund mechanism remained available for the notified services and could not be denied solely because drawback was availed. The claim was therefore viewed as no longer res integra, and rejection of the refund on that ground was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 May 2017 08:13:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470302" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1345 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343607</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax paid on specified export-related services under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was treated as admissible even where drawback had also been claimed. The notification framework, read with the later amendment and the drawback notification, was taken to show that the refund mechanism remained available for the notified services and could not be denied solely because drawback was availed. The claim was therefore viewed as no longer res integra, and rejection of the refund on that ground was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>