<?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 (9) TMI 632 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347875</link>
    <description>The Delhi HC ruled in favor of the petitioner in a case involving refund of unutilized CENVAT credit for export of telecommunication services. The Department denied the refund claiming services were provided within India and involved related parties. The HC held that under the Master Supply Agreement, Verizon US was the actual service recipient with contractual rights and payment obligations, not the end customers who merely used the services. The court distinguished between service recipients and users, noting no contractual privity existed between the Indian entity and US customers. The HC found the Department incorrectly applied related-party criteria not stipulated under applicable rules. Following Paul Merchants Ltd precedent and referencing Circular 141/10/2011, the court determined the services qualified as exports. The petition was allowed, with the refund denial and service tax demand deemed unsustainable in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 11:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 632 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347875</link>
      <description>The Delhi HC ruled in favor of the petitioner in a case involving refund of unutilized CENVAT credit for export of telecommunication services. The Department denied the refund claiming services were provided within India and involved related parties. The HC held that under the Master Supply Agreement, Verizon US was the actual service recipient with contractual rights and payment obligations, not the end customers who merely used the services. The court distinguished between service recipients and users, noting no contractual privity existed between the Indian entity and US customers. The HC found the Department incorrectly applied related-party criteria not stipulated under applicable rules. Following Paul Merchants Ltd precedent and referencing Circular 141/10/2011, the court determined the services qualified as exports. The petition was allowed, with the refund denial and service tax demand deemed unsustainable in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>