<?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>2009 (7) TMI 83 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34565</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the alleged wrongful credit of service tax on services provided by a Customs House Agent for export consignments. The judgment overturned the tax demand confirmation without penalty imposition, citing previous cases and emphasizing the ownership of goods until the port area for input service credit. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue&#039;s reliance on a different judgment and set aside the orders, allowing the appeals filed by the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 83 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34565</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the alleged wrongful credit of service tax on services provided by a Customs House Agent for export consignments. The judgment overturned the tax demand confirmation without penalty imposition, citing previous cases and emphasizing the ownership of goods until the port area for input service credit. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue&#039;s reliance on a different judgment and set aside the orders, allowing the appeals filed by the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34565</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>