<?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>2009 (6) TMI 244 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75188</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the denial of credit on Landline Telephone, Cleaning &amp;amp; Maintenance of Garden, Pandal &amp;amp; Shamiana services, and Group Insurance to employees. It was ruled that denial based on the installation location of the telephone, rendering of cleaning and gardening services outside the factory premises, and lack of relation of Pandal &amp;amp; Shamiana services to business activities was unjustified. Credit for these services was allowed, with penalties also being set aside. The denial of credit for personal insurance policies of employees under Group Insurance was deemed unjustified, and credit for insurance services was permitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 244 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75188</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the denial of credit on Landline Telephone, Cleaning &amp;amp; Maintenance of Garden, Pandal &amp;amp; Shamiana services, and Group Insurance to employees. It was ruled that denial based on the installation location of the telephone, rendering of cleaning and gardening services outside the factory premises, and lack of relation of Pandal &amp;amp; Shamiana services to business activities was unjustified. Credit for these services was allowed, with penalties also being set aside. The denial of credit for personal insurance policies of employees under Group Insurance was deemed unjustified, and credit for insurance services was permitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75188</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>