<?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>Cenvat credit on employee and officer mobile phone services was treated as admissible because the input-service definition did not require use within factory premises and extended to sufficiently connected business services. Credit on customs house agent services used at the port after factory removal was denied for lacking a nexus with manufacture or factory clearance. Construction services for circles and gardens displaying product signboards were also ineligible because their connection with advertisement was too remote. Penalty was not warranted where the dispute arose from competing interpretations of input-service eligibility. The resulting position allowed mobile-service credit, denied the other credits, and deleted 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>Cenvat credit on employee and officer mobile phone services was treated as admissible because the input-service definition did not require use within factory premises and extended to sufficiently connected business services. Credit on customs house agent services used at the port after factory removal was denied for lacking a nexus with manufacture or factory clearance. Construction services for circles and gardens displaying product signboards were also ineligible because their connection with advertisement was too remote. Penalty was not warranted where the dispute arose from competing interpretations of input-service eligibility. The resulting position allowed mobile-service credit, denied the other credits, and deleted 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>