<?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>2022 (1) TMI 972 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417507</link>
    <description>Service tax paid on lease premium for an SEZ unit was treated as refundable because the services were used for authorised operations and the SEZ framework grants exemption with overriding effect, using refund as the prescribed mode of implementation. The tax could not be retained merely because the payment was described as lease premium, and the procedural requirements for claiming exemption were satisfied. The framework also did not permit an eligible refund to be split into quarterly instalments over the lease period. The single eligible refund was therefore payable in one go, and quarterly apportionment was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=668151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 972 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417507</link>
      <description>Service tax paid on lease premium for an SEZ unit was treated as refundable because the services were used for authorised operations and the SEZ framework grants exemption with overriding effect, using refund as the prescribed mode of implementation. The tax could not be retained merely because the payment was described as lease premium, and the procedural requirements for claiming exemption were satisfied. The framework also did not permit an eligible refund to be split into quarterly instalments over the lease period. The single eligible refund was therefore payable in one go, and quarterly apportionment was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417507</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>