<?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 632 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331248</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order regarding the time bar issue for claiming service tax credit on transit insurance premium. It held that the appellant&#039;s regular filing of statutory returns and lack of evidence of fraud or suppression supported their eligibility for the credits, rejecting the argument that the extended period for demanding payment could be invoked due to routine audit detection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 632 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331248</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order regarding the time bar issue for claiming service tax credit on transit insurance premium. It held that the appellant&#039;s regular filing of statutory returns and lack of evidence of fraud or suppression supported their eligibility for the credits, rejecting the argument that the extended period for demanding payment could be invoked due to routine audit detection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331248</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>