<?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>2007 (2) TMI 6 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1130</link>
    <description>Service tax credit under Rule 3 of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 was allowable only when the input and output services were treated as the same taxable service category, and the deeming provision required them to fall within the same sub-clause of Section 65(90) of the Finance Act, 1994. Because steamer agent services and cargo handling services fell under different sub-clauses, the statutory condition for credit was not met. The denial of credit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 6 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1130</link>
      <description>Service tax credit under Rule 3 of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 was allowable only when the input and output services were treated as the same taxable service category, and the deeming provision required them to fall within the same sub-clause of Section 65(90) of the Finance Act, 1994. Because steamer agent services and cargo handling services fell under different sub-clauses, the statutory condition for credit was not met. The denial of credit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1130</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>