<?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 (11) TMI 1309 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240132</link>
    <description>The Tribunal denied the Applicant&#039;s request for a total waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and CENVAT Credit. The Applicant was directed to deposit 50% of the confirmed demand within a specified period, with the balance dues subject to waiver upon compliance. Recovery was stayed during the Appeal&#039;s pendency. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s position on the interpretation of Notification No.29/2004-ST, limiting the exemption on interest to overdraft and cash credit facilities. The denial of CENVAT Credit on input services for providing exempted services under Rule 6 was also upheld. The issue of limitation was deferred for examination during the Appeal process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:51:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1309 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240132</link>
      <description>The Tribunal denied the Applicant&#039;s request for a total waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and CENVAT Credit. The Applicant was directed to deposit 50% of the confirmed demand within a specified period, with the balance dues subject to waiver upon compliance. Recovery was stayed during the Appeal&#039;s pendency. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s position on the interpretation of Notification No.29/2004-ST, limiting the exemption on interest to overdraft and cash credit facilities. The denial of CENVAT Credit on input services for providing exempted services under Rule 6 was also upheld. The issue of limitation was deferred for examination during the Appeal process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>