<?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>2020 (2) TMI 1007 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392563</link>
    <description>Service tax rebate under Notification No. 41/2012-ST, as amended by Notification No. 1/2016, was available for chartered accountant and allied services used in connection with exports and not confined to the factory or other place of production. The decisive test was whether the taxable services were used beyond the factory or premises of manufacture for export, and the distinction between pre-export and post-export services was held irrelevant. The services described in the certificate were found connected with export activity, and the department produced no contrary evidence. The refund claims were therefore admissible and the rejection was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2020 11:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604874" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1007 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392563</link>
      <description>Service tax rebate under Notification No. 41/2012-ST, as amended by Notification No. 1/2016, was available for chartered accountant and allied services used in connection with exports and not confined to the factory or other place of production. The decisive test was whether the taxable services were used beyond the factory or premises of manufacture for export, and the distinction between pre-export and post-export services was held irrelevant. The services described in the certificate were found connected with export activity, and the department produced no contrary evidence. The refund claims were therefore admissible and the rejection was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>