<?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>2014 (4) TMI 1216 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200827</link>
    <description>Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 was treated as admissible where the disputed services were found to qualify as input services connected with manufacture and export. Building lease rent, computer peripheral, printing, hiring, professional and consultancy, trademark-related, courier, testing, export forwarding, fumigation and transport charges were held eligible because manufacture required premises and the other services supported production or export. For exported goods, the place of removal was taken as the port, so services used up to that point fell within the input service definition. The refund claim was allowed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:26:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518039" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 1216 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200827</link>
      <description>Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 was treated as admissible where the disputed services were found to qualify as input services connected with manufacture and export. Building lease rent, computer peripheral, printing, hiring, professional and consultancy, trademark-related, courier, testing, export forwarding, fumigation and transport charges were held eligible because manufacture required premises and the other services supported production or export. For exported goods, the place of removal was taken as the port, so services used up to that point fell within the input service definition. The refund claim was allowed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>