<?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 (4) TMI 15 - CESTAT, Ahmedabad</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1456</link>
    <description>The note explains Cenvat credit eligibility under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by distinguishing services with a sufficient nexus to business operations from remote or post-clearance services. It records that mobile phone services used by employees and officers were treated as eligible input services, while CHA services used after removal of goods from the factory were treated as too remote for credit. It also states that construction services used to prepare circles and gardens for product signboards were not sufficiently connected to advertisement activity and were therefore ineligible. The note further records that a dispute based on interpretation of input service did not justify penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40867" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 15 - CESTAT, Ahmedabad</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1456</link>
      <description>The note explains Cenvat credit eligibility under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by distinguishing services with a sufficient nexus to business operations from remote or post-clearance services. It records that mobile phone services used by employees and officers were treated as eligible input services, while CHA services used after removal of goods from the factory were treated as too remote for credit. It also states that construction services used to prepare circles and gardens for product signboards were not sufficiently connected to advertisement activity and were therefore ineligible. The note further records that a dispute based on interpretation of input service did not justify penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>