<?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>2012 (5) TMI 33 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212973</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the stay petition, waived the pre-deposit, and stayed the recovery during the appeal&#039;s pendency. It held that credit cannot be denied for service tax paid on taxable services received outside the factory premises if they fall under the definition of &#039;input service&#039; under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The judgment emphasized interpreting the rules to determine the admissibility of credits for services used in manufacturing processes, even if conducted outside the factory premises.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 05:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 33 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212973</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the stay petition, waived the pre-deposit, and stayed the recovery during the appeal&#039;s pendency. It held that credit cannot be denied for service tax paid on taxable services received outside the factory premises if they fall under the definition of &#039;input service&#039; under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The judgment emphasized interpreting the rules to determine the admissibility of credits for services used in manufacturing processes, even if conducted outside the factory premises.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>