<?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 (6) TMI 250 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361423</link>
    <description>The Member (Judicial) dismissed Revenue&#039;s stay petitions to halt the impugned order&#039;s operations, finding them lacking merit. The respondent, an exporter of &#039;Business Support Services,&#039; was denied a refund for CENVAT Credit on service tax paid for various input services. The first appellate authority set aside the impugned order, upholding the respondent&#039;s refund claims based on established legal precedents. The judgment interpreted the definition of &#039;input service&#039; post April 2014, rejecting Revenue&#039;s argument and affirming the correctness of the impugned order. The appeals were consequently rejected in line with legal principles and precedents cited in the judgment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2018 07:51:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522671" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 250 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361423</link>
      <description>The Member (Judicial) dismissed Revenue&#039;s stay petitions to halt the impugned order&#039;s operations, finding them lacking merit. The respondent, an exporter of &#039;Business Support Services,&#039; was denied a refund for CENVAT Credit on service tax paid for various input services. The first appellate authority set aside the impugned order, upholding the respondent&#039;s refund claims based on established legal precedents. The judgment interpreted the definition of &#039;input service&#039; post April 2014, rejecting Revenue&#039;s argument and affirming the correctness of the impugned order. The appeals were consequently rejected in line with legal principles and precedents cited in the judgment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361423</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>