<?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>2011 (2) TMI 56 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202699</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted the appellant&#039;s application for waiver from pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest, and penalty. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing motorcycles and parts, availed construction services for factory buildings, resulting in a Cenvat credit demand. The Department argued the credit was inadmissible as the outcome was immovable property, not goods or services. However, the Tribunal held that the construction services fell within the definition of &#039;input service&#039; and that denying credit based on the immovable property outcome would contradict the definition. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and stayed recovery until appeal disposal, ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 13:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176274" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 56 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202699</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted the appellant&#039;s application for waiver from pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest, and penalty. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing motorcycles and parts, availed construction services for factory buildings, resulting in a Cenvat credit demand. The Department argued the credit was inadmissible as the outcome was immovable property, not goods or services. However, the Tribunal held that the construction services fell within the definition of &#039;input service&#039; and that denying credit based on the immovable property outcome would contradict the definition. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and stayed recovery until appeal disposal, ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>