<?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 (7) TMI 745 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215247</link>
    <description>Denial of Cenvat credit on service tax paid for insurance premium and clearing and forwarding services required fresh verification of supporting evidence and satisfaction of the prescribed conditions. The claimant remained responsible for proving that the input services were used in relation to manufacture and clearance of excisable goods. The Original Authority was directed to examine bank records, proof of service tax payment by the service provider, the nexus between the services and manufacturing activity, and compliance with Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Limitation and penalty were also kept open for consideration in the remand proceedings, and the matter was sent back for de novo decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 745 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215247</link>
      <description>Denial of Cenvat credit on service tax paid for insurance premium and clearing and forwarding services required fresh verification of supporting evidence and satisfaction of the prescribed conditions. The claimant remained responsible for proving that the input services were used in relation to manufacture and clearance of excisable goods. The Original Authority was directed to examine bank records, proof of service tax payment by the service provider, the nexus between the services and manufacturing activity, and compliance with Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Limitation and penalty were also kept open for consideration in the remand proceedings, and the matter was sent back for de novo decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>