<?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 905 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336260</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit could not be restricted where the service provider had discharged service tax on the full taxable value and the tax authorities had accepted that payment as revenue. Credit taken by the recipient on the basis of invoices showing the actual tax paid was consistent with the Cenvat scheme, so denial of the balance credit solely because Notification No. 30/2012-ST contemplated a lower prescribed rate was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 905 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336260</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit could not be restricted where the service provider had discharged service tax on the full taxable value and the tax authorities had accepted that payment as revenue. Credit taken by the recipient on the basis of invoices showing the actual tax paid was consistent with the Cenvat scheme, so denial of the balance credit solely because Notification No. 30/2012-ST contemplated a lower prescribed rate was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>