<?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 1192 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200841</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellate order. It emphasized the essential services provided by the appellant in relation to the manufacturing and installation process, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant regarding entitlement to Cenvat credit on input services, despite not being the manufacturer of the final product.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:42:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 1192 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200841</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellate order. It emphasized the essential services provided by the appellant in relation to the manufacturing and installation process, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant regarding entitlement to Cenvat credit on input services, despite not being the manufacturer of the final product.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>