<?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 (12) TMI 388 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219373</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on inputs written off before 11-5-2007 could not be reversed because the reversal requirement under Rule 3(5B) applied only from that date, so denial of credit on that ground was unsustainable. Credit was allowed on pest control, sewage disposal plant AMC, air-conditioner AMC in the instrumentation room, computer AMC and online auction services because those services had a sufficient nexus with manufacture or clearance; credit was denied on canteen facility, as the statutory obligation under the Factories Act did not arise, and on air travel agent service for lack of proof of business nexus. The penalty question was remanded for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 388 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219373</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on inputs written off before 11-5-2007 could not be reversed because the reversal requirement under Rule 3(5B) applied only from that date, so denial of credit on that ground was unsustainable. Credit was allowed on pest control, sewage disposal plant AMC, air-conditioner AMC in the instrumentation room, computer AMC and online auction services because those services had a sufficient nexus with manufacture or clearance; credit was denied on canteen facility, as the statutory obligation under the Factories Act did not arise, and on air travel agent service for lack of proof of business nexus. The penalty question was remanded for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>