<?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 811 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208102</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai ruled in a case concerning the availability of credit of service tax paid on security services for a captive saltpan owned by a manufacturer of soda ash and ammonium chloride. The Tribunal held that security services within the factory premises are considered input services, but those used in the saltpan, excluded from the factory definition, cannot be treated as such. While upholding demands for a specific period, the Tribunal found the demand for an earlier period time-barred and annulled penalties, considering the respondent&#039;s genuine belief in eligibility for the credit. The Commissioner&#039;s orders were set aside, restoring the original authorities&#039; decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 08:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181574" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 811 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208102</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai ruled in a case concerning the availability of credit of service tax paid on security services for a captive saltpan owned by a manufacturer of soda ash and ammonium chloride. The Tribunal held that security services within the factory premises are considered input services, but those used in the saltpan, excluded from the factory definition, cannot be treated as such. While upholding demands for a specific period, the Tribunal found the demand for an earlier period time-barred and annulled penalties, considering the respondent&#039;s genuine belief in eligibility for the credit. The Commissioner&#039;s orders were set aside, restoring the original authorities&#039; decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>