<?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 335 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335690</link>
    <description>Services used for dismantling and renovation of a factory pipeline were treated as input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, so credit was admissible on that component. Credit taken on commission without proof of service tax payment, on amounts unsupported by invoices, and on the sales tax component was inadmissible because those items did not satisfy the credit conditions. As the inadmissible credit had already been reversed with interest, the penalty was reduced to 25% of the inadmissible credit amount. The appeal thus succeeded only to the limited extent of allowing pipeline-related credit, while the remaining disallowances and reduced penalty were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2016 13:21:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 335 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335690</link>
      <description>Services used for dismantling and renovation of a factory pipeline were treated as input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, so credit was admissible on that component. Credit taken on commission without proof of service tax payment, on amounts unsupported by invoices, and on the sales tax component was inadmissible because those items did not satisfy the credit conditions. As the inadmissible credit had already been reversed with interest, the penalty was reduced to 25% of the inadmissible credit amount. The appeal thus succeeded only to the limited extent of allowing pipeline-related credit, while the remaining disallowances and reduced penalty were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335690</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>