<?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 (1) TMI 490 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78476</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, a State Government undertaking involved in transporting natural gas through pipelines, in a case concerning the imposition of service tax, interest, and penalty for disallowing input credit of service tax. The Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit during the appeal, determining that the services availed were related to the applicant&#039;s business activity and fell within the definition of input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the extended period for demand was not applicable due to the applicant&#039;s compliance with registration and tax payment requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 490 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78476</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, a State Government undertaking involved in transporting natural gas through pipelines, in a case concerning the imposition of service tax, interest, and penalty for disallowing input credit of service tax. The Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit during the appeal, determining that the services availed were related to the applicant&#039;s business activity and fell within the definition of input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the extended period for demand was not applicable due to the applicant&#039;s compliance with registration and tax payment requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>