<?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 (12) TMI 493 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352224</link>
    <description>For refund under the export-service exemption notification, the decisive factor is the nature and use of the services in relation to exports, not the classification adopted by the service provider. Terminal handling charges, repo charges, Customs House Agent Service and Clearing and Forwarding Service used for export of goods were treated as eligible export-related services, and the refund of service tax paid on them was allowed under Notification No. 41/2007, as amended. The fact that the invoices described some services under Business Auxiliary Service did not change their substantive character for the recipient. The revenue challenge was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2017 07:42:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 493 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352224</link>
      <description>For refund under the export-service exemption notification, the decisive factor is the nature and use of the services in relation to exports, not the classification adopted by the service provider. Terminal handling charges, repo charges, Customs House Agent Service and Clearing and Forwarding Service used for export of goods were treated as eligible export-related services, and the refund of service tax paid on them was allowed under Notification No. 41/2007, as amended. The fact that the invoices described some services under Business Auxiliary Service did not change their substantive character for the recipient. The revenue challenge was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>