<?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 539 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246461</link>
    <description>The judge ruled in favor of the Appellants, holding that services provided by commission agents for sales promotion qualify as input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The judge dismissed the Revenue&#039;s contention, allowing the appeal without pre-deposit requirements. The decision emphasized the consistency of legal interpretation and upheld the Appellants&#039; entitlement to claim Cenvat credit for service tax paid on commission agent services, aligning with the precedent set in their own case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 15:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 539 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246461</link>
      <description>The judge ruled in favor of the Appellants, holding that services provided by commission agents for sales promotion qualify as input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The judge dismissed the Revenue&#039;s contention, allowing the appeal without pre-deposit requirements. The decision emphasized the consistency of legal interpretation and upheld the Appellants&#039; entitlement to claim Cenvat credit for service tax paid on commission agent services, aligning with the precedent set in their own case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>