<?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>2010 (4) TMI 370 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77555</link>
    <description>Service tax paid on construction of staff residential quarters was treated as an eligible input service for CENVAT credit because the definition of input service extended to services used in the premises of the output service provider. Since the staff quarters were accepted as the bank&#039;s premises, the construction service fell within Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The disallowance of credit was therefore held unsustainable, and the credit was admissible to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 370 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77555</link>
      <description>Service tax paid on construction of staff residential quarters was treated as an eligible input service for CENVAT credit because the definition of input service extended to services used in the premises of the output service provider. Since the staff quarters were accepted as the bank&#039;s premises, the construction service fell within Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The disallowance of credit was therefore held unsustainable, and the credit was admissible to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>