<?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 292 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213433</link>
    <description>Outdoor catering service used to supply food through an employee canteen was examined for CENVAT credit eligibility by reference to the statutory obligation to maintain a canteen under the Factories Act and the applicable employee strength during the relevant period. The factual basis needed to apply the governing High Court rulings had not been properly verified, so the credit issue was not finally determined and was remitted for fresh adjudication. The limitation objection raised in the cross-objection was also left open because it had not been independently examined on the correct factual footing. The lower orders were set aside and the matter sent back for de novo decision on both issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 07:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 292 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213433</link>
      <description>Outdoor catering service used to supply food through an employee canteen was examined for CENVAT credit eligibility by reference to the statutory obligation to maintain a canteen under the Factories Act and the applicable employee strength during the relevant period. The factual basis needed to apply the governing High Court rulings had not been properly verified, so the credit issue was not finally determined and was remitted for fresh adjudication. The limitation objection raised in the cross-objection was also left open because it had not been independently examined on the correct factual footing. The lower orders were set aside and the matter sent back for de novo decision on both issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>