<?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 (9) TMI 605 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201909</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi stayed the Commissioner (Appeals) order until the appeal is resolved. The case involved determining if goods delivery at the port and CHA service qualify as &quot;input service&quot; under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal ruled that the place of export differs from the place of removal as per the rules, considering arguments from the Departmental Representative (DR) and halting the Commissioner&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 15:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 605 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201909</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi stayed the Commissioner (Appeals) order until the appeal is resolved. The case involved determining if goods delivery at the port and CHA service qualify as &quot;input service&quot; under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal ruled that the place of export differs from the place of removal as per the rules, considering arguments from the Departmental Representative (DR) and halting the Commissioner&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201909</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>