<?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 (8) TMI 354 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330970</link>
    <description>The Tribunal clarified the interpretation of Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules regarding the availability of CENVAT Credit for paying Service Tax on Goods Transport Agency services. The case highlighted the impact of the explanation&#039;s deletion in Rule 2(p) and the evolving legal landscape, resulting in the partial allowance of the appeal due to discrepancies in legal interpretation and the absence of penalties in the absence of deliberate fraud.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437777" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 354 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330970</link>
      <description>The Tribunal clarified the interpretation of Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules regarding the availability of CENVAT Credit for paying Service Tax on Goods Transport Agency services. The case highlighted the impact of the explanation&#039;s deletion in Rule 2(p) and the evolving legal landscape, resulting in the partial allowance of the appeal due to discrepancies in legal interpretation and the absence of penalties in the absence of deliberate fraud.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>