<?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 (7) TMI 984 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173392</link>
    <description>Input service credit was treated as admissible for air and rail ticket booking, insurance, mediclaim and contractors policy, vehicle maintenance, and security services because earlier Tribunal decisions had already accepted credit on each of those services. Applying that consistent line of authority, the Tribunal followed the same view in the present appeals and rejected the Revenue&#039;s challenge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 May 2017 12:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 984 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173392</link>
      <description>Input service credit was treated as admissible for air and rail ticket booking, insurance, mediclaim and contractors policy, vehicle maintenance, and security services because earlier Tribunal decisions had already accepted credit on each of those services. Applying that consistent line of authority, the Tribunal followed the same view in the present appeals and rejected the Revenue&#039;s challenge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>