<?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 (9) TMI 261 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33566</link>
    <description>Refund of excess service tax paid on GTA services under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. turned on whether the exemption conditions, including payment of tax on only 25% of the gross amount and the prescribed restrictions on credit and other benefits, were satisfied. The original rejection was based on lack of supporting endorsement or evidence, but the record contained a transporter&#039;s certificate suggesting eligibility for the relevant consignments. As the eligibility question required fresh factual verification, the refund claim could not be finally decided on the existing record. The matter was therefore required to be remanded for fresh consideration with an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72196" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 261 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33566</link>
      <description>Refund of excess service tax paid on GTA services under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. turned on whether the exemption conditions, including payment of tax on only 25% of the gross amount and the prescribed restrictions on credit and other benefits, were satisfied. The original rejection was based on lack of supporting endorsement or evidence, but the record contained a transporter&#039;s certificate suggesting eligibility for the relevant consignments. As the eligibility question required fresh factual verification, the refund claim could not be finally decided on the existing record. The matter was therefore required to be remanded for fresh consideration with an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33566</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>