<?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>2018 (1) TMI 1175 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354439</link>
    <description>Services supplied to a foreign recipient through an Indian agent were treated as export of service because the consideration was received abroad and the agent only executed remittance in India; on that basis, the services fell outside the Indian service tax net. The refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment because the evidence showed that uniform charges were collected from foreign customers without passing any tax burden to a third party, supported by the billing structure and a chartered accountant certificate; the refund scheme for export of services was also held not to be defeated by that doctrine. The rejection of refund was therefore unsustainable and refund with consequential relief was due.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2018 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1175 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354439</link>
      <description>Services supplied to a foreign recipient through an Indian agent were treated as export of service because the consideration was received abroad and the agent only executed remittance in India; on that basis, the services fell outside the Indian service tax net. The refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment because the evidence showed that uniform charges were collected from foreign customers without passing any tax burden to a third party, supported by the billing structure and a chartered accountant certificate; the refund scheme for export of services was also held not to be defeated by that doctrine. The rejection of refund was therefore unsustainable and refund with consequential relief was due.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>