<?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 (2) TMI 678 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355257</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s appeal seeking recovery of alleged CENVAT credit for distribution by the head office without excluding tax on input services attributable to &#039;trading&#039;. The decision was based on the appellant&#039;s failure to maintain separate accounts for trading activities, the ineligibility of trading as a service, and non-compliance with the law regarding credit availment and distribution. The Tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s argument on the prospective application of the Explanation in the CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing that the exclusion of credit for trading activities was valid even before the rule amendment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 06:15:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 678 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355257</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s appeal seeking recovery of alleged CENVAT credit for distribution by the head office without excluding tax on input services attributable to &#039;trading&#039;. The decision was based on the appellant&#039;s failure to maintain separate accounts for trading activities, the ineligibility of trading as a service, and non-compliance with the law regarding credit availment and distribution. The Tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s argument on the prospective application of the Explanation in the CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing that the exclusion of credit for trading activities was valid even before the rule amendment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355257</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>