<?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 (6) TMI 614 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328905</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision, allowing the respondent to claim Cenvat Credit for a supplementary invoice issued by the service provider for past service tax payment. The Tribunal determined that Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 did not restrict availing Cenvat Credit for such invoices related to input services before the 2011 amendment. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objection was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2016 10:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 614 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328905</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision, allowing the respondent to claim Cenvat Credit for a supplementary invoice issued by the service provider for past service tax payment. The Tribunal determined that Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 did not restrict availing Cenvat Credit for such invoices related to input services before the 2011 amendment. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objection was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>