<?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 1064 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344793</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) order allowing the availing of CENVAT credit against supplementary invoices for services rendered in the past, amounting to Rs. 13,13,274. The Tribunal emphasized that there were no specific restrictions on utilizing supplementary invoices for services and that the availed credit was permissible under the relevant rules. The decision in JSW Steels Ltd case was upheld, highlighting the consistent approach in treating supplementary invoices for services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:25:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=475726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 1064 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344793</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) order allowing the availing of CENVAT credit against supplementary invoices for services rendered in the past, amounting to Rs. 13,13,274. The Tribunal emphasized that there were no specific restrictions on utilizing supplementary invoices for services and that the availed credit was permissible under the relevant rules. The decision in JSW Steels Ltd case was upheld, highlighting the consistent approach in treating supplementary invoices for services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>