<?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>2008 (1) TMI 351 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31434</link>
    <description>A port licence permitting operations within port premises does not, by itself, make the licensee a provider of Port Services on behalf of the port. On the facts described, handling export cargo inside the port was treated as outside the statutory scope of Port Services under the Finance Act, 1994, and even if viewed as cargo handling, export cargo remained outside service tax liability. Refund entitlement was considered under the conditions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and consequential relief followed where the tax was not payable. The impugned appellate order allowing refund was upheld and the Revenue challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70081" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 351 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31434</link>
      <description>A port licence permitting operations within port premises does not, by itself, make the licensee a provider of Port Services on behalf of the port. On the facts described, handling export cargo inside the port was treated as outside the statutory scope of Port Services under the Finance Act, 1994, and even if viewed as cargo handling, export cargo remained outside service tax liability. Refund entitlement was considered under the conditions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and consequential relief followed where the tax was not payable. The impugned appellate order allowing refund was upheld and the Revenue challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>