<?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 (3) TMI 239 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356536</link>
    <description>Health insurance premium paid for CISF personnel was excluded from input service because the amended Rule 2(l) bars credit where health insurance is used primarily for the personal use or consumption of any employee, so the cenvat credit denial was sustained. Interest under Rule 14 was not payable because wrongly taken credit attracts interest only when it is also utilised; as the disputed credit was not used and sufficient balance remained, the interest demand was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2018 12:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511663" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 239 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356536</link>
      <description>Health insurance premium paid for CISF personnel was excluded from input service because the amended Rule 2(l) bars credit where health insurance is used primarily for the personal use or consumption of any employee, so the cenvat credit denial was sustained. Interest under Rule 14 was not payable because wrongly taken credit attracts interest only when it is also utilised; as the disputed credit was not used and sufficient balance remained, the interest demand was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356536</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>