<?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 989 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334971</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s decision to disallow credit for service tax paid on &quot;outdoor catering services&quot; and &quot;rent-a-cab service&quot; due to lack of disclosure by the appellant regarding cost recovery from employees. The appeal was dismissed, and penalties were imposed based on interpretational issues related to Cenvat credit, as the appellant failed to inform the Revenue about the recovery, despite arguing against the penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449018" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 989 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334971</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s decision to disallow credit for service tax paid on &quot;outdoor catering services&quot; and &quot;rent-a-cab service&quot; due to lack of disclosure by the appellant regarding cost recovery from employees. The appeal was dismissed, and penalties were imposed based on interpretational issues related to Cenvat credit, as the appellant failed to inform the Revenue about the recovery, despite arguing against the penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>