<?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 (4) TMI 782 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258901</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 19,96,13,222, penalties, and interest due to the appellant&#039;s failure to provide invoices in their name. Concerns were raised over the appellant&#039;s registration status and the legitimacy of claiming credit on services not directly related to them. To protect the Revenue&#039;s interests, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 4 crores in three installments. Failure to comply would allow the Revenue to recover dues, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the deposit order and providing proof of payment to the Adjudicating Authority. Compliance by a specified date was required to avoid consequences.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2015 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382685" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 782 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258901</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 19,96,13,222, penalties, and interest due to the appellant&#039;s failure to provide invoices in their name. Concerns were raised over the appellant&#039;s registration status and the legitimacy of claiming credit on services not directly related to them. To protect the Revenue&#039;s interests, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 4 crores in three installments. Failure to comply would allow the Revenue to recover dues, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the deposit order and providing proof of payment to the Adjudicating Authority. Compliance by a specified date was required to avoid consequences.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258901</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>