<?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 (7) TMI 478 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755258</link>
    <description>Service tax refund in a Special Economic Zone is admissible for services wholly consumed in the SEZ and used for authorised operations because the SEZ Act has overriding effect and exempts such taxable services; prior payment of tax does not defeat the refund claim. Refund cannot be denied merely because invoices were addressed to the corporate office, xerox copies were initially filed, or exchange rate fluctuation was cited where receipt and use of services are not disputed. Alleged defects such as missing signatures, wrong dates, lack of payment proof, and container repair charges required fresh verification on merits, and the last category depended on proof that the service formed part of authorised operations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2024 08:00:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=759538" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 478 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755258</link>
      <description>Service tax refund in a Special Economic Zone is admissible for services wholly consumed in the SEZ and used for authorised operations because the SEZ Act has overriding effect and exempts such taxable services; prior payment of tax does not defeat the refund claim. Refund cannot be denied merely because invoices were addressed to the corporate office, xerox copies were initially filed, or exchange rate fluctuation was cited where receipt and use of services are not disputed. Alleged defects such as missing signatures, wrong dates, lack of payment proof, and container repair charges required fresh verification on merits, and the last category depended on proof that the service formed part of authorised operations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>