<?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 (7) TMI 559 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75880</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for inward transportation of goods was treated as admissible because the issue was already covered by binding Division Bench precedent in Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., which had been followed in later coordinate Bench decisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found justified in relying on that precedent while allowing the claim, and no infirmity was identified in that approach. The revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and the credit on inward transport service tax was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 559 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75880</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for inward transportation of goods was treated as admissible because the issue was already covered by binding Division Bench precedent in Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., which had been followed in later coordinate Bench decisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found justified in relying on that precedent while allowing the claim, and no infirmity was identified in that approach. The revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and the credit on inward transport service tax was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75880</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>