<?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 517 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340014</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of M/s GMP Technical Solutions Pvt. Ltd., overturning the lower authority&#039;s decision. It confirmed the eligibility of CENVAT Credit for services related to commissioning and installation, despite the exemption of some goods from excise duty. The Tribunal rejected the allegation of artificially splitting a contract and emphasized the distinction between manufacturing and installation activities. The Deputy Commissioner&#039;s report supported the appellant&#039;s claim that the credit was only availed for taxable output services, not for manufacturing exempted goods, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 517 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340014</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of M/s GMP Technical Solutions Pvt. Ltd., overturning the lower authority&#039;s decision. It confirmed the eligibility of CENVAT Credit for services related to commissioning and installation, despite the exemption of some goods from excise duty. The Tribunal rejected the allegation of artificially splitting a contract and emphasized the distinction between manufacturing and installation activities. The Deputy Commissioner&#039;s report supported the appellant&#039;s claim that the credit was only availed for taxable output services, not for manufacturing exempted goods, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340014</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>