<?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>2017 (3) TMI 426 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339923</link>
    <description>The appeal by the Department challenging the setting aside of demand, interest, and penalty imposed on a non-banking finance company for claiming credit on service tax paid on insurance premiums was dismissed. The Member (Judicial) found that the insurance policy&#039;s primary purpose was to secure loans advanced by the respondent, not directly benefiting customers. As the insurance had a direct nexus with the respondent&#039;s financing activities, the credit for service tax paid on insurance premiums was deemed eligible. The decision to set aside the demand, interest, and penalty imposed on the respondent was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2017 15:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460795" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 426 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339923</link>
      <description>The appeal by the Department challenging the setting aside of demand, interest, and penalty imposed on a non-banking finance company for claiming credit on service tax paid on insurance premiums was dismissed. The Member (Judicial) found that the insurance policy&#039;s primary purpose was to secure loans advanced by the respondent, not directly benefiting customers. As the insurance had a direct nexus with the respondent&#039;s financing activities, the credit for service tax paid on insurance premiums was deemed eligible. The decision to set aside the demand, interest, and penalty imposed on the respondent was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>