<?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>2024 (3) TMI 1041 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451260</link>
    <description>Receipts from overseas clients were treated as export of services because the original authority found that the services were rendered to foreign recipients, consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange, and the Rule 6A conditions were satisfied. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order mainly because the underlying agreement was not produced and other foreign clients were not discussed, but did not record any clear adverse finding on export of service or non-compliance with the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. That appellate interference was held unsustainable, and the original order dropping the service tax demand was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Mar 2024 08:24:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 1041 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451260</link>
      <description>Receipts from overseas clients were treated as export of services because the original authority found that the services were rendered to foreign recipients, consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange, and the Rule 6A conditions were satisfied. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order mainly because the underlying agreement was not produced and other foreign clients were not discussed, but did not record any clear adverse finding on export of service or non-compliance with the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. That appellate interference was held unsustainable, and the original order dropping the service tax demand was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>