<?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 (10) TMI 324 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209750</link>
    <description>Service tax paid on commission agent services was treated as admissible CENVAT credit, because input service was applied in a broad, settled sense and the Board&#039;s clarification supported credit on sales commission. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on Maruti Suzuki was not accepted, as later appellate and High Court rulings had distinguished that authority in this context. On that basis, the credit claim was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 324 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209750</link>
      <description>Service tax paid on commission agent services was treated as admissible CENVAT credit, because input service was applied in a broad, settled sense and the Board&#039;s clarification supported credit on sales commission. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on Maruti Suzuki was not accepted, as later appellate and High Court rulings had distinguished that authority in this context. On that basis, the credit claim was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>