<?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>2019 (1) TMI 1110 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373945</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund of service tax paid on disputed services as a clear nexus was established between input services and exported output services. The refund claim was within the limitation period as it was filed within one year of receiving foreign exchange in India. However, the appellant was not entitled to refund for Cenvat credit availed on credit notes. The case was remanded for verification of invoices not submitted during adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:36:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=554389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1110 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373945</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund of service tax paid on disputed services as a clear nexus was established between input services and exported output services. The refund claim was within the limitation period as it was filed within one year of receiving foreign exchange in India. However, the appellant was not entitled to refund for Cenvat credit availed on credit notes. The case was remanded for verification of invoices not submitted during adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373945</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>