<?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 (9) TMI 486 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208933</link>
    <description>The appellant&#039;s claim for CENVAT credit on inspection charges was denied as the cost of the service was not included in the value of the final product. The denial of service tax credit by lower authorities was upheld. However, the penalty under Rule 15 was reduced due to the absence of deliberate suppression of facts by the appellant. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2014 11:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 486 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208933</link>
      <description>The appellant&#039;s claim for CENVAT credit on inspection charges was denied as the cost of the service was not included in the value of the final product. The denial of service tax credit by lower authorities was upheld. However, the penalty under Rule 15 was reduced due to the absence of deliberate suppression of facts by the appellant. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208933</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>