<?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 219 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347462</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to disallow CENVAT credit for expenses reimbursement debit notes as they did not meet the criteria for valid duty-paying documents under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. While credit was allowed for logistic services, the reimbursement expenses were found inadmissible. The appellants also failed to demonstrate compliance with the Pure Agents provision under Rule 5(2) of Valuation Rules. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2017 08:20:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 219 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347462</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to disallow CENVAT credit for expenses reimbursement debit notes as they did not meet the criteria for valid duty-paying documents under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. While credit was allowed for logistic services, the reimbursement expenses were found inadmissible. The appellants also failed to demonstrate compliance with the Pure Agents provision under Rule 5(2) of Valuation Rules. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>