<?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 (7) TMI 1080 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330482</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on service tax paid for GTA services used in outward transportation was admissible where the sale was on FOR basis, freight formed part of the price, and the seller retained ownership and risk until delivery at the customer&#039;s doorstep in accordance with the Board circular dated 23.08.2007. The HC treated the appellate authority&#039;s factual finding on these conditions as binding, since it had not been challenged before the Tribunal, and confined appellate scrutiny to substantial questions of law. It also held that a pending challenge before the Supreme Court to another High Court ruling did not itself create a substantial question of law. The appeal therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2016 16:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1080 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330482</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on service tax paid for GTA services used in outward transportation was admissible where the sale was on FOR basis, freight formed part of the price, and the seller retained ownership and risk until delivery at the customer&#039;s doorstep in accordance with the Board circular dated 23.08.2007. The HC treated the appellate authority&#039;s factual finding on these conditions as binding, since it had not been challenged before the Tribunal, and confined appellate scrutiny to substantial questions of law. It also held that a pending challenge before the Supreme Court to another High Court ruling did not itself create a substantial question of law. The appeal therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330482</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>