<?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 (5) TMI 26 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1541</link>
    <description>Credit of service tax paid on mobile phone bills was treated as potentially admissible as input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 because the rule allows credit for services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture and clearance of final products, and prior precedent had held that such credit is not barred. However, the assessee still had to prove before the adjudicating authority that the mobile phone service was actually used in the course of manufacture or clearance, and that factual issue had not been examined below. The denial of credit was therefore not finally sustained on merits, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 26 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1541</link>
      <description>Credit of service tax paid on mobile phone bills was treated as potentially admissible as input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 because the rule allows credit for services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture and clearance of final products, and prior precedent had held that such credit is not barred. However, the assessee still had to prove before the adjudicating authority that the mobile phone service was actually used in the course of manufacture or clearance, and that factual issue had not been examined below. The denial of credit was therefore not finally sustained on merits, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>