<?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 (4) TMI 618 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358507</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the demand for service tax on transactions with associate enterprises, rejecting the appellant&#039;s arguments. Regarding the denial of Cenvat Credit, the tribunal remanded issues related to insurance, vehicle repairs, taxi hire charges, and telephone bills for fresh adjudication based on evidence. The tribunal allowed the credit for construction services and works contract. Penalties under Sections 78 and 76 were set aside or waived, respectively. The tribunal upheld the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to the appellants&#039; failure to provide necessary evidence. The appeal was partly allowed, with various issues remanded for further review.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2019 10:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 618 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358507</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the demand for service tax on transactions with associate enterprises, rejecting the appellant&#039;s arguments. Regarding the denial of Cenvat Credit, the tribunal remanded issues related to insurance, vehicle repairs, taxi hire charges, and telephone bills for fresh adjudication based on evidence. The tribunal allowed the credit for construction services and works contract. Penalties under Sections 78 and 76 were set aside or waived, respectively. The tribunal upheld the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to the appellants&#039; failure to provide necessary evidence. The appeal was partly allowed, with various issues remanded for further review.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358507</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>