<?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 (2) TMI 925 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355504</link>
    <description>Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 05/2006-C.E. (N.T.) was treated as admissible for input services used in export of information technology software services where the department had not disputed those services at the credit-availment stage. The Tribunal noted that refund could not be denied merely on alleged lack of nexus or invoice-export mismatch when earlier periods in the same assessee&#039;s case had already allowed substantially similar services. The claim was therefore allowed in line with the earlier decision, except for transportation of goods by air, which remained outside the recognised benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 925 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355504</link>
      <description>Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 05/2006-C.E. (N.T.) was treated as admissible for input services used in export of information technology software services where the department had not disputed those services at the credit-availment stage. The Tribunal noted that refund could not be denied merely on alleged lack of nexus or invoice-export mismatch when earlier periods in the same assessee&#039;s case had already allowed substantially similar services. The claim was therefore allowed in line with the earlier decision, except for transportation of goods by air, which remained outside the recognised benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>