<?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 (10) TMI 648 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333628</link>
    <description>The appellants successfully appealed against the denial of Cenvat Credit for various service tax payments. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing credits for services related to factory expansion, construction, repair, maintenance, architect services, and renting immovable property. The denial of credit for insurance services for experts from Japan was overturned, except for medical claims for family members. However, credits for club or association services for directors were denied. Penalties were not imposed due to the proper reporting of credits, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the eligibility of certain credits was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 16:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 648 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333628</link>
      <description>The appellants successfully appealed against the denial of Cenvat Credit for various service tax payments. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing credits for services related to factory expansion, construction, repair, maintenance, architect services, and renting immovable property. The denial of credit for insurance services for experts from Japan was overturned, except for medical claims for family members. However, credits for club or association services for directors were denied. Penalties were not imposed due to the proper reporting of credits, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the eligibility of certain credits was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333628</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>