<?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 (8) TMI 63 -  CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2310</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for mobile phones used by a service provider to render output service was admissible because the phones were treated as input service when used in relation to the output service and in connection with the business. The connections stood in the service provider&#039;s name, the departmental circular did not prohibit such credit, and prior tribunal authority supported admissibility. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41677" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 63 -  CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2310</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for mobile phones used by a service provider to render output service was admissible because the phones were treated as input service when used in relation to the output service and in connection with the business. The connections stood in the service provider&#039;s name, the departmental circular did not prohibit such credit, and prior tribunal authority supported admissibility. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>