<?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>2026 (3) TMI 348 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787593</link>
    <description>Mines qualify as &#039;place of removal&#039; under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act for purposes of Notification No. 41/2007-ST because mining amounts to production/manufacture and goods were removed from mine to port, so the removal condition is satisfied and refund may be allowed; a chartered accountant certificate together with agreements, shipping bills and GAR-7 challans establishes payment of service tax on GTA services and non availment of cenvat credit where no specific documentary gaps are identified, so refund is admissible for the original claim; an enhancement based on invoices outside the original claim is not maintainable in the remand and must be filed afresh, so the enhanced claim is rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 08:51:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=889630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 348 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787593</link>
      <description>Mines qualify as &#039;place of removal&#039; under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act for purposes of Notification No. 41/2007-ST because mining amounts to production/manufacture and goods were removed from mine to port, so the removal condition is satisfied and refund may be allowed; a chartered accountant certificate together with agreements, shipping bills and GAR-7 challans establishes payment of service tax on GTA services and non availment of cenvat credit where no specific documentary gaps are identified, so refund is admissible for the original claim; an enhancement based on invoices outside the original claim is not maintainable in the remand and must be filed afresh, so the enhanced claim is rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787593</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>