<?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>2025 (7) TMI 1003 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774935</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal filed by an SEZ unit regarding service tax refund claims. The tribunal held that management consultancy service was duly approved by the unit approval committee as evidenced by meeting minutes dated 16.02.2012, making the refund of ? 43,50,828 admissible. The authority had wrongly rejected this claim. Regarding furniture and fixtures rental, the tribunal ruled that refund cannot be disallowed merely because separate invoices were issued for building rent and furniture rent, as renting of immovable property service was approved by the committee. The tribunal emphasized that beneficial export benefits should not be rejected on technicalities. Additionally, delay in filing the refund claim was condoned considering the genuine reasons provided by the appellant and liberal interpretation of exemption notification conditions. The original authority was directed to sanction the refund based on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:19:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=836691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1003 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774935</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal filed by an SEZ unit regarding service tax refund claims. The tribunal held that management consultancy service was duly approved by the unit approval committee as evidenced by meeting minutes dated 16.02.2012, making the refund of ? 43,50,828 admissible. The authority had wrongly rejected this claim. Regarding furniture and fixtures rental, the tribunal ruled that refund cannot be disallowed merely because separate invoices were issued for building rent and furniture rent, as renting of immovable property service was approved by the committee. The tribunal emphasized that beneficial export benefits should not be rejected on technicalities. Additionally, delay in filing the refund claim was condoned considering the genuine reasons provided by the appellant and liberal interpretation of exemption notification conditions. The original authority was directed to sanction the refund based on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>