<?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 (10) TMI 1233 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265958</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit was treated as admissible for club membership services where the membership had a demonstrable nexus with the manufacturing business, including business information, technical support, guidance, research, and activities connected with expansion, renovation, modernisation, and improved production. The timing of supporting documents did not, by itself, justify denial of credit for an earlier period once receipt of the service and tax payment were otherwise established. Minor procedural irregularities in documentation were held insufficient to defeat substantive entitlement, and the procedural objection was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:54:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401840" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1233 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265958</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit was treated as admissible for club membership services where the membership had a demonstrable nexus with the manufacturing business, including business information, technical support, guidance, research, and activities connected with expansion, renovation, modernisation, and improved production. The timing of supporting documents did not, by itself, justify denial of credit for an earlier period once receipt of the service and tax payment were otherwise established. Minor procedural irregularities in documentation were held insufficient to defeat substantive entitlement, and the procedural objection was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265958</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>