<?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 (12) TMI 90 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4010</link>
    <description>Service tax credit on telephone bills was admissible only where the telephone was installed and used at the business premises for the testing activity. Credit relating to the proprietor&#039;s residential telephone was disallowed, while credit relating to telephones at the business premises was allowed. Because part of the credit was wrongly taken, penalty remained sustainable, but it had to be confined to the inadmissible portion; the penalty was reduced accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 90 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4010</link>
      <description>Service tax credit on telephone bills was admissible only where the telephone was installed and used at the business premises for the testing activity. Credit relating to the proprietor&#039;s residential telephone was disallowed, while credit relating to telephones at the business premises was allowed. Because part of the credit was wrongly taken, penalty remained sustainable, but it had to be confined to the inadmissible portion; the penalty was reduced accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>