<?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>2013 (2) TMI 60 - CESTAT Ahmedabad</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220650</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on services received at the head office was upheld where the head office was registered as an Input Service Distributor, even though it had not issued an invoice for distribution of the service tax paid. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case and held that the first appellate order allowing credit was consistent with that precedent. No infirmity was found in the impugned order, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 07:37:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194012" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 60 - CESTAT Ahmedabad</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220650</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on services received at the head office was upheld where the head office was registered as an Input Service Distributor, even though it had not issued an invoice for distribution of the service tax paid. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case and held that the first appellate order allowing credit was consistent with that precedent. No infirmity was found in the impugned order, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>