<?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>2015 (1) TMI 948 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255749</link>
    <description>Outdoor catering service used to provide food to factory employees was treated as having a direct nexus with manufacture, because the canteen expenditure formed part of production cost and served a business-related welfare function. Statutory obligation under Section 46 of the Factories Act was not a precondition for Cenvat credit. The number of employees in the factory was immaterial to eligibility, so credit on outdoor catering service was stated to be admissible regardless of whether the workforce exceeded 250.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374609" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 948 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255749</link>
      <description>Outdoor catering service used to provide food to factory employees was treated as having a direct nexus with manufacture, because the canteen expenditure formed part of production cost and served a business-related welfare function. Statutory obligation under Section 46 of the Factories Act was not a precondition for Cenvat credit. The number of employees in the factory was immaterial to eligibility, so credit on outdoor catering service was stated to be admissible regardless of whether the workforce exceeded 250.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>