<?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 (6) TMI 635 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344364</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the appellant was not entitled to the full credit on common input services and must reverse the excess credit claimed. The court dismissed the appeal, finding in favor of the Revenue and against the Assessee on the legal issues raised regarding the applicability of Cenvat Credit Rules to input services not used in trading activities and the classification of trading as an exempted service.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=472279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 635 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344364</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the appellant was not entitled to the full credit on common input services and must reverse the excess credit claimed. The court dismissed the appeal, finding in favor of the Revenue and against the Assessee on the legal issues raised regarding the applicability of Cenvat Credit Rules to input services not used in trading activities and the classification of trading as an exempted service.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>