<?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 1868 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279821</link>
    <description>Service tax exemption for CHA services rendered to SEZ units was treated as available where the services were consumed within the zone. Although an earlier notification referred to authorization by a committee headed by the Chief Commissioner, the record showed that no such committee had been constituted and the condition was later deleted in the successor notification. The Development Commissioner&#039;s clarification also supported exemption for services used inside the SEZ. On that basis, denial of exemption merely for non-compliance with the procedural authorization requirement was held unjustified, and the benefit was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2019 00:39:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1868 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279821</link>
      <description>Service tax exemption for CHA services rendered to SEZ units was treated as available where the services were consumed within the zone. Although an earlier notification referred to authorization by a committee headed by the Chief Commissioner, the record showed that no such committee had been constituted and the condition was later deleted in the successor notification. The Development Commissioner&#039;s clarification also supported exemption for services used inside the SEZ. On that basis, denial of exemption merely for non-compliance with the procedural authorization requirement was held unjustified, and the benefit was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>