<?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 (7) TMI 632 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210300</link>
    <description>The Tribunal remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, allowing the appellant to present their case regarding the confirmation of service tax demand, interest, and penalties. The appellant&#039;s challenge against the restriction on credit utilization for taxable and exempted services was upheld, with the Tribunal clarifying that the restriction did not apply to credit availed on capital goods. The denial of credit due to lack of original documents was addressed, recommending further review by the adjudicating authority. Discrepancies in disclosed values and credit utilization restrictions on capital goods were also highlighted, leading to a remand for fresh assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183735" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 632 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210300</link>
      <description>The Tribunal remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, allowing the appellant to present their case regarding the confirmation of service tax demand, interest, and penalties. The appellant&#039;s challenge against the restriction on credit utilization for taxable and exempted services was upheld, with the Tribunal clarifying that the restriction did not apply to credit availed on capital goods. The denial of credit due to lack of original documents was addressed, recommending further review by the adjudicating authority. Discrepancies in disclosed values and credit utilization restrictions on capital goods were also highlighted, leading to a remand for fresh assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210300</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>