<?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>2010 (12) TMI 1116 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166995</link>
    <description>Service tax credit on outdoor catering services was unavailable to the extent the cost of food was borne by workers, so the credit claim required fresh quantification on that basis. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication of the quantified input credit dispute. On penalty, the facts were found insufficient to justify its imposition, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:21:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 1116 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166995</link>
      <description>Service tax credit on outdoor catering services was unavailable to the extent the cost of food was borne by workers, so the credit claim required fresh quantification on that basis. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication of the quantified input credit dispute. On penalty, the facts were found insufficient to justify its imposition, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166995</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>