<?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>2012 (5) TMI 520 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245948</link>
    <description>Freight service tax paid on transport of motor vehicles from the factory to the dealer&#039;s premises was not admissible as input service for the assessee&#039;s authorised service station activity. The assessee&#039;s dealer function and authorised service station function were distinct, and the transport of vehicles to the dealer premises related to the pre-sale dealer activity rather than post-sale servicing. A Board clarification supporting that distinction reinforced the view that the GTA service could not be linked to the authorised service station function. The credit claim therefore failed, and the demand and penalty order of the original authority stood restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 520 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245948</link>
      <description>Freight service tax paid on transport of motor vehicles from the factory to the dealer&#039;s premises was not admissible as input service for the assessee&#039;s authorised service station activity. The assessee&#039;s dealer function and authorised service station function were distinct, and the transport of vehicles to the dealer premises related to the pre-sale dealer activity rather than post-sale servicing. A Board clarification supporting that distinction reinforced the view that the GTA service could not be linked to the authorised service station function. The credit claim therefore failed, and the demand and penalty order of the original authority stood restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245948</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>