<?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 950 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255751</link>
    <description>A prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit was found on the service tax demand relating to bill discounting charges because the exemption covered interest attributable to discounting of bills when shown separately, and the assessee had treated the amount as interest. No comparable prima facie case was made out on the CENVAT credit demand because, for the relevant period, Rule 6 required separate accounts for input services used in taxable and exempted services, and that condition was not disputed. The pre-deposit order was therefore interfered with only for the bill discounting component, while a reduced deposit was retained for the CENVAT credit dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:09:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 950 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255751</link>
      <description>A prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit was found on the service tax demand relating to bill discounting charges because the exemption covered interest attributable to discounting of bills when shown separately, and the assessee had treated the amount as interest. No comparable prima facie case was made out on the CENVAT credit demand because, for the relevant period, Rule 6 required separate accounts for input services used in taxable and exempted services, and that condition was not disputed. The pre-deposit order was therefore interfered with only for the bill discounting component, while a reduced deposit was retained for the CENVAT credit dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>