<?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 (3) TMI 282 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244827</link>
    <description>The court upheld the denial of input service credit on rent-a-cab service, ruling that transportation of employees did not qualify as part of the manpower supply service. The lack of specific provisions in the agreement with the service provider regarding manpower supply at the appellant&#039;s doorstep or quantification of charges led to the rejection of the appellant&#039;s argument. The court found insufficient evidence to support the claim and determined no deliberate intention to avail inadmissible credit, thus dismissing the penalty. The court disallowed the credit for the normal period of limitation along with interest, concluding the appeal accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:25:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 282 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244827</link>
      <description>The court upheld the denial of input service credit on rent-a-cab service, ruling that transportation of employees did not qualify as part of the manpower supply service. The lack of specific provisions in the agreement with the service provider regarding manpower supply at the appellant&#039;s doorstep or quantification of charges led to the rejection of the appellant&#039;s argument. The court found insufficient evidence to support the claim and determined no deliberate intention to avail inadmissible credit, thus dismissing the penalty. The court disallowed the credit for the normal period of limitation along with interest, concluding the appeal accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>