<?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>2023 (10) TMI 741 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444518</link>
    <description>Exemption from service tax for services supplied to an SEZ unit could not be denied merely because Form A1 was furnished late, where the services themselves were undisputed and the substantive notification conditions were ultimately met. The SEZ exemption under Section 26(1)(e) was treated as prevailing over the service tax levy framework, so the denial of exemption and consequent demand were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 07:40:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 741 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444518</link>
      <description>Exemption from service tax for services supplied to an SEZ unit could not be denied merely because Form A1 was furnished late, where the services themselves were undisputed and the substantive notification conditions were ultimately met. The SEZ exemption under Section 26(1)(e) was treated as prevailing over the service tax levy framework, so the denial of exemption and consequent demand were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444518</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>