<?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 (11) TMI 431 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334413</link>
    <description>Housekeeping services used to maintain cleanliness in factory premises were treated as input services eligible for Cenvat credit because compliance with the cleanliness requirement under the Factories Act was viewed as integral to manufacturing operations. On that basis, the denial of credit, together with interest and penalty, was found unsustainable on the housekeeping issue and set aside in favour of the assessee. The remaining appeals were not pressed and therefore did not survive for merits-based adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447539" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 431 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334413</link>
      <description>Housekeeping services used to maintain cleanliness in factory premises were treated as input services eligible for Cenvat credit because compliance with the cleanliness requirement under the Factories Act was viewed as integral to manufacturing operations. On that basis, the denial of credit, together with interest and penalty, was found unsustainable on the housekeeping issue and set aside in favour of the assessee. The remaining appeals were not pressed and therefore did not survive for merits-based adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>