<?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 1543 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192553</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST could not be denied merely because drawback had been claimed on specified services used for export of goods. The services were received after manufacture and were not included in the drawback computation, so the Tribunal held that the drawback rules did not apply to deny refund on such input services. Applying the earlier view in Mittal International, it concluded that the assessee remained entitled to the refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2017 06:48:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1543 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192553</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST could not be denied merely because drawback had been claimed on specified services used for export of goods. The services were received after manufacture and were not included in the drawback computation, so the Tribunal held that the drawback rules did not apply to deny refund on such input services. Applying the earlier view in Mittal International, it concluded that the assessee remained entitled to the refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>