<?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 (3) TMI 1117 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186739</link>
    <description>After the 01.04.2011 amendment to the Cenvat Credit Rules, services used for construction of a building or civil structure, including works contract service for foundation or support structures, were treated as excluded from input service credit. On the facts, credit was therefore inadmissible for construction service and works contract service used in erection of BTS towers, but remained admissible for erection, commissioning and installation service, consultancy engineer&#039;s service, business auxiliary service and business support service. In view of the limited disallowance and the absence of mala fide intent, penalty was held unwarranted and set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1117 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186739</link>
      <description>After the 01.04.2011 amendment to the Cenvat Credit Rules, services used for construction of a building or civil structure, including works contract service for foundation or support structures, were treated as excluded from input service credit. On the facts, credit was therefore inadmissible for construction service and works contract service used in erection of BTS towers, but remained admissible for erection, commissioning and installation service, consultancy engineer&#039;s service, business auxiliary service and business support service. In view of the limited disallowance and the absence of mala fide intent, penalty was held unwarranted and set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>