<?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 691 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332430</link>
    <description>Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 was allowed for input services found to have a direct and necessary nexus with export output services. The inclusive definition of input service was applied broadly to services such as renting of immovable property, rent-a-cab, consultancy, housekeeping, professional and legal services, manpower recruitment, technical inspection, GTA, and sewage treatment, while meal coupons or food vouchers were treated as welfare expenditure and excluded. Procedural objections based on missing registration details, imperfect service descriptions, or invoices not separately showing service tax were rejected where documentary evidence and reverse-charge payment established substantive eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 691 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332430</link>
      <description>Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 was allowed for input services found to have a direct and necessary nexus with export output services. The inclusive definition of input service was applied broadly to services such as renting of immovable property, rent-a-cab, consultancy, housekeeping, professional and legal services, manpower recruitment, technical inspection, GTA, and sewage treatment, while meal coupons or food vouchers were treated as welfare expenditure and excluded. Procedural objections based on missing registration details, imperfect service descriptions, or invoices not separately showing service tax were rejected where documentary evidence and reverse-charge payment established substantive eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332430</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>