https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238365 The Tribunal denied the appellants' claim for Cenvat credit on inputs like cement, glass, and steel used in constructing malls rented out as services, emphasizing the distinction between inputs for construction and those directly used for output services. The Tribunal required a 35% deposit of the disputed amount, citing precedents where similar credits were disallowed for construction-related activities. Additionally, the appellants' claim for Cenvat credit on various input services like architecture and consultancy was also rejected, with a similar 35% deposit requirement imposed by the majority order, despite a dissenting opinion advocating for a lower pre-deposit focusing solely on inputs and capital goods. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238365 The Tribunal denied the appellants' claim for Cenvat credit on inputs like cement, glass, and steel used in constructing malls rented out as services, emphasizing the distinction between inputs for construction and those directly used for output services. The Tribunal required a 35% deposit of the disputed amount, citing precedents where similar credits were disallowed for construction-related activities. Additionally, the appellants' claim for Cenvat credit on various input services like architecture and consultancy was also rejected, with a similar 35% deposit requirement imposed by the majority order, despite a dissenting opinion advocating for a lower pre-deposit focusing solely on inputs and capital goods. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238365