<?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 (5) TMI 17 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359453</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for GTA services used to transport finished goods from a job worker&#039;s premises to the principal manufacturer&#039;s depot was found inadmissible. The Tribunal treated the dispute as turning on the meaning of &quot;place of removal&quot; and the scope of &quot;input service&quot; for the relevant period, and followed an earlier Division Bench ruling on the same manufacturer and similar facts that had already denied such credit and was affirmed by the High Court. The later amendment to the definition of input service did not alter that settled position, so the credit claim remained rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 May 2018 06:21:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518552" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 17 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359453</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for GTA services used to transport finished goods from a job worker&#039;s premises to the principal manufacturer&#039;s depot was found inadmissible. The Tribunal treated the dispute as turning on the meaning of &quot;place of removal&quot; and the scope of &quot;input service&quot; for the relevant period, and followed an earlier Division Bench ruling on the same manufacturer and similar facts that had already denied such credit and was affirmed by the High Court. The later amendment to the definition of input service did not alter that settled position, so the credit claim remained rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>