<?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 771 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336126</link>
    <description>Warranty repair charges paid to dealers during the warranty period were treated as eligible input service credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, because repair and maintenance undertaken under warranty was regarded as activity relating to the sale of goods. Following its earlier view in the manufacturer&#039;s own case, the Tribunal held that the service tax paid on such dealer repairs qualified for credit, and the denial of input service credit was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:07:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451706" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 771 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336126</link>
      <description>Warranty repair charges paid to dealers during the warranty period were treated as eligible input service credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, because repair and maintenance undertaken under warranty was regarded as activity relating to the sale of goods. Following its earlier view in the manufacturer&#039;s own case, the Tribunal held that the service tax paid on such dealer repairs qualified for credit, and the denial of input service credit was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336126</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>