<?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>2018 (1) TMI 361 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353625</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the credit for brokerage paid for arranging residential accommodation for employees, citing precedents that deemed such charges essential for business operations. However, the decision on Group Medical Insurance was remanded for further examination to determine the eligibility of credit for any extra premium paid for family coverage, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation before disallowing credits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2018 08:15:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503637" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 361 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353625</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the credit for brokerage paid for arranging residential accommodation for employees, citing precedents that deemed such charges essential for business operations. However, the decision on Group Medical Insurance was remanded for further examination to determine the eligibility of credit for any extra premium paid for family coverage, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation before disallowing credits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>