<?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 (1) TMI 1155 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187692</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed as the appellant was entitled to claim CENVAT credit of tax paid on invoices raised by co-dealers, based on the decision of the Hon&#039;ble High Court of Bombay. The tribunal recognized the appellant&#039;s role as a provider of output service, even when the servicing was delegated to another dealer, and concluded that the appellant could claim the credit for tax paid on such invoices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446538" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1155 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187692</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed as the appellant was entitled to claim CENVAT credit of tax paid on invoices raised by co-dealers, based on the decision of the Hon&#039;ble High Court of Bombay. The tribunal recognized the appellant&#039;s role as a provider of output service, even when the servicing was delegated to another dealer, and concluded that the appellant could claim the credit for tax paid on such invoices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>