<?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 (4) TMI 538 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246455</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit was held admissible on service tax paid for job worker services because the issue had already been settled in favour of availment where the job worker had not taken exemption. Credit on cargo handling services was also held admissible because the invoice showed the service was received on the appellant&#039;s account and paid on its behalf, indicating a pure agent arrangement. The result was that credit on both categories of services was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 15:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 538 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246455</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit was held admissible on service tax paid for job worker services because the issue had already been settled in favour of availment where the job worker had not taken exemption. Credit on cargo handling services was also held admissible because the invoice showed the service was received on the appellant&#039;s account and paid on its behalf, indicating a pure agent arrangement. The result was that credit on both categories of services was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>