<?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 (4) TMI 272 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222076</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants regarding the appeal against the service tax demand, allowing them to utilize the centralized CENVAT credit account for specific services. The demand of Rs. 5,42,11,275/- was deemed unsustainable, and the issue of maintaining separate accounts for input/input services was remanded for further verification. The appellants were directed to cooperate with the adjudicating authority by providing relevant documentation to support their claim of maintaining separate accounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:32:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 272 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222076</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants regarding the appeal against the service tax demand, allowing them to utilize the centralized CENVAT credit account for specific services. The demand of Rs. 5,42,11,275/- was deemed unsustainable, and the issue of maintaining separate accounts for input/input services was remanded for further verification. The appellants were directed to cooperate with the adjudicating authority by providing relevant documentation to support their claim of maintaining separate accounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>