https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343779 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) order and granting the appellant a refund for services including renting of immovable property, photocopying, and housekeeping. The Tribunal held that all these services qualified as input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, emphasizing that proof of tax deposit by the landlord was not the appellant's responsibility. The decision was supported by legal precedents, including a Bombay High Court ruling, highlighting the broad interpretation of input services. Refunds were allowed for all contested services, contingent on verification of related invoices. en-us Wed, 01 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jun 2017 07:25:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343779 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) order and granting the appellant a refund for services including renting of immovable property, photocopying, and housekeeping. The Tribunal held that all these services qualified as input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, emphasizing that proof of tax deposit by the landlord was not the appellant's responsibility. The decision was supported by legal precedents, including a Bombay High Court ruling, highlighting the broad interpretation of input services. Refunds were allowed for all contested services, contingent on verification of related invoices. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 01 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343779