<?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 862 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348105</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned Order, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal and ruling in favor of the Respondent. It held that Service Tax paid on Courier Services is eligible for CENVAT Credit for sending samples, documents, and finished goods, both before and after the 2011 amendment to the definition of Input Services. The Tribunal found that Courier Services are integrally connected to the manufacturing activity and are eligible for credit, despite not being directly related to manufacturing post-amendment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2017 12:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489562" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 862 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348105</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned Order, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal and ruling in favor of the Respondent. It held that Service Tax paid on Courier Services is eligible for CENVAT Credit for sending samples, documents, and finished goods, both before and after the 2011 amendment to the definition of Input Services. The Tribunal found that Courier Services are integrally connected to the manufacturing activity and are eligible for credit, despite not being directly related to manufacturing post-amendment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>