<?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 (11) TMI 302 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204755</link>
    <description>A prima facie case was found for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery where the invoices bore the assessee&#039;s addresses and the denial of credit was based only on alleged non-compliance with Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The record did not show excess credit over the invoices or exclusive engagement in exempted manufacture or exempted services, so the disputed service tax credit and consequential penalty were stayed pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 18:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 302 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204755</link>
      <description>A prima facie case was found for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery where the invoices bore the assessee&#039;s addresses and the denial of credit was based only on alleged non-compliance with Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The record did not show excess credit over the invoices or exclusive engagement in exempted manufacture or exempted services, so the disputed service tax credit and consequential penalty were stayed pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>