Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that CENVAT credit of Rs.57,68,603/- on input services used in setting up a cement plant was eligible despite the removal of "setting up" from the definition of "input service" effective April 2011. The Tribunal found the appellant properly availed credit for banking, management, legal consultancy, and installation services under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules. Additionally, CENVAT credit of Rs.32,557/- based on debit notes for rent was deemed valid as they contained all details required by Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules. The demand for interest of Rs.24,88,246/- was set aside since the appellant maintained sufficient CENVAT credit balance. Penalties under Section 78 of Finance Act were also vacated.
The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that CENVAT credit of Rs.57,68,603/- on input services used in setting up a cement plant was eligible despite the removal of "setting up" from the definition of "input service" effective April 2011. The Tribunal found the appellant properly availed credit for banking, management, legal consultancy, and installation services under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules. Additionally, CENVAT credit of Rs.32,557/- based on debit notes for rent was deemed valid as they contained all details required by Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules. The demand for interest of Rs.24,88,246/- was set aside since the appellant maintained sufficient CENVAT credit balance. Penalties under Section 78 of Finance Act were also vacated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
