<?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 1028 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352759</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax on input services used in a Special Economic Zone unit could not be denied merely because the services were not specifically listed in the approved authorised operations list, where they were admittedly received and wholly consumed within the SEZ for authorised operations. The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006, and Notification No. 9/2009-ST were read as supporting exemption or refund for taxable services used in relation to authorised operations. Non-inclusion in the Development Commissioner&#039;s approval list was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive bar to refund entitlement. The denial of refund was therefore unsustainable, and relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:16:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1028 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352759</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax on input services used in a Special Economic Zone unit could not be denied merely because the services were not specifically listed in the approved authorised operations list, where they were admittedly received and wholly consumed within the SEZ for authorised operations. The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006, and Notification No. 9/2009-ST were read as supporting exemption or refund for taxable services used in relation to authorised operations. Non-inclusion in the Development Commissioner&#039;s approval list was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive bar to refund entitlement. The denial of refund was therefore unsustainable, and relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352759</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>