<?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 292 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347535</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order denying Cenvat Credit on aircraft hiring charges and legal services obtained from abroad, remanding the case to the original authority to decide solely on the issues raised in the notice. The Tribunal emphasized that exceeding the scope of the show-cause notice was impermissible, as the denial of credit was based on specific grounds outlined in the notice, such as the exclusion clause for aircraft hiring charges and Rule 5 of the Taxation of Services Rules for legal services. The Revenue&#039;s argument regarding recovery from the Input Service Distributor (ISD) was rejected, and the case was returned for reconsideration within the notice&#039;s parameters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 292 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347535</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order denying Cenvat Credit on aircraft hiring charges and legal services obtained from abroad, remanding the case to the original authority to decide solely on the issues raised in the notice. The Tribunal emphasized that exceeding the scope of the show-cause notice was impermissible, as the denial of credit was based on specific grounds outlined in the notice, such as the exclusion clause for aircraft hiring charges and Rule 5 of the Taxation of Services Rules for legal services. The Revenue&#039;s argument regarding recovery from the Input Service Distributor (ISD) was rejected, and the case was returned for reconsideration within the notice&#039;s parameters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347535</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>