<?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 (5) TMI 226 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379498</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that they were eligible for exemption under the notification exempting service tax on job work for processes done for a 100% EOU. The Tribunal found that the goods manufactured by the EOU were not unconditionally exempted, as they were required not to be brought to any other place in India for the exemption to apply. The demand for service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2019 10:42:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 226 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379498</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that they were eligible for exemption under the notification exempting service tax on job work for processes done for a 100% EOU. The Tribunal found that the goods manufactured by the EOU were not unconditionally exempted, as they were required not to be brought to any other place in India for the exemption to apply. The demand for service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379498</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>