<?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>2014 (2) TMI 861 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244267</link>
    <description>CESTAT granted substantial waiver of pre-deposit in a service tax dispute involving credit denial, abatement, and GTA recomputation. It held prima facie that Cenvat credit could not be denied to the service recipient merely because the Department sought to reclassify the provider&#039;s service, and that an earlier stay order on the same issue supported relief. It also found that the abatement notification did not bar input service credit before 01.03.2006, though a limited deposit was justified for the March 2006 period when the restriction had begun. On the classification and GTA demands, the Tribunal found no basis for substantial pre-deposit, except for small undisputed amounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 861 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244267</link>
      <description>CESTAT granted substantial waiver of pre-deposit in a service tax dispute involving credit denial, abatement, and GTA recomputation. It held prima facie that Cenvat credit could not be denied to the service recipient merely because the Department sought to reclassify the provider&#039;s service, and that an earlier stay order on the same issue supported relief. It also found that the abatement notification did not bar input service credit before 01.03.2006, though a limited deposit was justified for the March 2006 period when the restriction had begun. On the classification and GTA demands, the Tribunal found no basis for substantial pre-deposit, except for small undisputed amounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>