<?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 (9) TMI 91 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331830</link>
    <description>The appeal challenging the inadmissibility of CENVAT credit on &#039;Catering Services&#039; and &#039;Tour Operator&#039; services due to recovery from employees was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the inadmissible credit and imposed a penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, citing precedents favoring the Revenue. The decision emphasized that even without mens rea, inadmissible credits would not be allowed under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2016 14:03:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 91 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331830</link>
      <description>The appeal challenging the inadmissibility of CENVAT credit on &#039;Catering Services&#039; and &#039;Tour Operator&#039; services due to recovery from employees was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the inadmissible credit and imposed a penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, citing precedents favoring the Revenue. The decision emphasized that even without mens rea, inadmissible credits would not be allowed under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>