https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170869 The Madras High Court interpreted Rule 2(l)(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act concerning input service and place of removal. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to an interim order as their claim did not align with the defined provisions. The petition was dismissed based on the court's interpretation of the relevant rules and acts. en-us Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jul 2017 13:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170869 The Madras High Court interpreted Rule 2(l)(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act concerning input service and place of removal. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to an interim order as their claim did not align with the defined provisions. The petition was dismissed based on the court's interpretation of the relevant rules and acts. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170869