<?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 821 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354085</link>
    <description>Services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory fall within the inclusive definition of input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute concerned professional services used for expansion-related work at factory premises, and the analysis treated such services as eligible where they were connected with renovation and related works. The stated result was that Cenvat credit on the service tax paid was admissible, and the lower authorities&#039; rejection was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 17:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 821 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354085</link>
      <description>Services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory fall within the inclusive definition of input service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute concerned professional services used for expansion-related work at factory premises, and the analysis treated such services as eligible where they were connected with renovation and related works. The stated result was that Cenvat credit on the service tax paid was admissible, and the lower authorities&#039; rejection was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>