<?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 (10) TMI 952 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246648</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service tax credit for services like telephone, security, and insurance used across multiple manufacturing units was admissible without proportional allocation during the relevant period. The failure to register as an Input Service Distributor was deemed a procedural irregularity and did not cause revenue loss, warranting a sympathetic view. Consequently, penalties under section 11AC related to this omission were set aside. However, credit availed on ineligible services without departmental knowledge justified invoking the extended period, and the related demand was upheld. The decision was partly in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2025 11:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 952 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246648</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service tax credit for services like telephone, security, and insurance used across multiple manufacturing units was admissible without proportional allocation during the relevant period. The failure to register as an Input Service Distributor was deemed a procedural irregularity and did not cause revenue loss, warranting a sympathetic view. Consequently, penalties under section 11AC related to this omission were set aside. However, credit availed on ineligible services without departmental knowledge justified invoking the extended period, and the related demand was upheld. The decision was partly in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246648</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>