<?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 461 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353725</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Original disallowing CENVAT credit on various input services like rent a cab, mobile telephone service, and pest control. The Tribunal held that the services qualified as input services under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as they were related to the appellant&#039;s business and not specifically for any employee. Consequently, the appellant was granted the CENVAT credit, and the penalty was overturned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:40:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 461 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353725</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Original disallowing CENVAT credit on various input services like rent a cab, mobile telephone service, and pest control. The Tribunal held that the services qualified as input services under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as they were related to the appellant&#039;s business and not specifically for any employee. Consequently, the appellant was granted the CENVAT credit, and the penalty was overturned.</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=353725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>