<?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>2016 (10) TMI 1176 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198981</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit of service tax paid on insurance services used in connection with manufacturing was treated as admissible where the services were integrally connected with the manufacturing activity and functioned as input services. The appellate authority&#039;s direction on quantification was not shown to be erroneous, so that aspect was left undisturbed. However, the disallowance of credit on certain insurance services could not stand because the appellate order gave no reasons for denying the credit, and reasons are necessary for judicial scrutiny. The disallowance on those identified services was set aside, while the order was otherwise maintained to the extent indicated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509196" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 1176 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198981</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit of service tax paid on insurance services used in connection with manufacturing was treated as admissible where the services were integrally connected with the manufacturing activity and functioned as input services. The appellate authority&#039;s direction on quantification was not shown to be erroneous, so that aspect was left undisturbed. However, the disallowance of credit on certain insurance services could not stand because the appellate order gave no reasons for denying the credit, and reasons are necessary for judicial scrutiny. The disallowance on those identified services was set aside, while the order was otherwise maintained to the extent indicated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>