<?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 (10) TMI 248 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252114</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting a waiver from pre-deposit and staying the recovery of dues. It held that outdoor catering services should be considered an input service eligible for CENVAT credit universally, rejecting the narrow interpretation based on the Factories Act, 1948. The Tribunal emphasized that as long as catering costs were not recovered from employees, the appellant was entitled to the CENVAT credit benefit, citing precedents and finding no legal basis for the opposing stance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 248 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252114</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting a waiver from pre-deposit and staying the recovery of dues. It held that outdoor catering services should be considered an input service eligible for CENVAT credit universally, rejecting the narrow interpretation based on the Factories Act, 1948. The Tribunal emphasized that as long as catering costs were not recovered from employees, the appellant was entitled to the CENVAT credit benefit, citing precedents and finding no legal basis for the opposing stance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252114</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>