<?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 (9) TMI 87 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347330</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit of service tax paid on royalty charges remained admissible because the credit was taken when the brand owner and the appellant were separate legal entities and the tax had been duly paid on the taxable service. A later amalgamation sanctioned with retrospective effect did not alter the legal character of the service, render the invoice infructuous, or retrospectively invalidate credit validly availed under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The denial was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 87 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347330</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit of service tax paid on royalty charges remained admissible because the credit was taken when the brand owner and the appellant were separate legal entities and the tax had been duly paid on the taxable service. A later amalgamation sanctioned with retrospective effect did not alter the legal character of the service, render the invoice infructuous, or retrospectively invalidate credit validly availed under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The denial was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>