<?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 (1) TMI 1448 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195371</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s rebate claims under Notification No.12/2005-ST for service tax paid on input services, overturning the initial rejection by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals). It held that the appellant was entitled to the rebate claim as per the notification&#039;s provisions. The Tribunal also confirmed the eligibility of input services claimed by the appellant for rebate, emphasizing that all services were utilized for exporting services. Additionally, it accepted the appellant&#039;s explanation regarding clerical mistakes in ST-3 returns and directed verification to disburse the rebate. The Tribunal emphasized substantial compliance with notification conditions and rejected the denial of rebate based on prior declaration estimates.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1448 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195371</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s rebate claims under Notification No.12/2005-ST for service tax paid on input services, overturning the initial rejection by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals). It held that the appellant was entitled to the rebate claim as per the notification&#039;s provisions. The Tribunal also confirmed the eligibility of input services claimed by the appellant for rebate, emphasizing that all services were utilized for exporting services. Additionally, it accepted the appellant&#039;s explanation regarding clerical mistakes in ST-3 returns and directed verification to disburse the rebate. The Tribunal emphasized substantial compliance with notification conditions and rejected the denial of rebate based on prior declaration estimates.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>