<?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 (5) TMI 549 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342811</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was treated as admissible on outdoor catering services and garden maintenance services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 because High Court decisions had already recognised both as eligible input services. The Tribunal followed the settled judicial position and held that credit could not be denied merely because the services related to worker welfare or business maintenance. On that basis, the disallowance was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 May 2017 07:44:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468443" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 549 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342811</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was treated as admissible on outdoor catering services and garden maintenance services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 because High Court decisions had already recognised both as eligible input services. The Tribunal followed the settled judicial position and held that credit could not be denied merely because the services related to worker welfare or business maintenance. On that basis, the disallowance was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>