<?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 (10) TMI 1303 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200746</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax on goods transport agency services used to move export goods from the factory to the port was treated as admissible because the transportation formed part of the export chain and the port of export was regarded as the place of removal. The CBEC clarification supported this position, and the argument that the service was availed only by the merchant exporter was rejected. The refund was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2018 10:35:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517445" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 1303 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200746</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax on goods transport agency services used to move export goods from the factory to the port was treated as admissible because the transportation formed part of the export chain and the port of export was regarded as the place of removal. The CBEC clarification supported this position, and the argument that the service was availed only by the merchant exporter was rejected. The refund was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>