<?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 (12) TMI 268 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335623</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting Revenue&#039;s appeals. It held that full service tax credit is allowable even if payment to the service provider is retained by the recipient, citing Rule 4(7) and a previous Tribunal decision. The decision emphasized that credit of full service tax paid by the provider remains available to the manufacturer, irrespective of any retained payment amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450695" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 268 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335623</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting Revenue&#039;s appeals. It held that full service tax credit is allowable even if payment to the service provider is retained by the recipient, citing Rule 4(7) and a previous Tribunal decision. The decision emphasized that credit of full service tax paid by the provider remains available to the manufacturer, irrespective of any retained payment amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>