<?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>2016 (4) TMI 232 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326118</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad held that sales promotion activities qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, including services related to dutiable goods on a commission basis. The amendment to Rule 2(l) via Notification 2/2016 CE(NT) is retrospective, aligning with Board Circular dated 29.04.2011 and Supreme Court precedents. The appellant, as a service recipient and deemed service provider, was entitled to claim CENVAT credit for such services used in relation to the manufacture and clearance of goods. The revenue failed to prove any erroneous claim. Consequently, the CENVAT credit claim was allowed, and the decision was in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2025 16:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 232 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326118</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad held that sales promotion activities qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, including services related to dutiable goods on a commission basis. The amendment to Rule 2(l) via Notification 2/2016 CE(NT) is retrospective, aligning with Board Circular dated 29.04.2011 and Supreme Court precedents. The appellant, as a service recipient and deemed service provider, was entitled to claim CENVAT credit for such services used in relation to the manufacture and clearance of goods. The revenue failed to prove any erroneous claim. Consequently, the CENVAT credit claim was allowed, and the decision was in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>