https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359980 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing eligibility for CENVAT credit on services of transport for employees. It held that the exclusion clause in Rule 2(l)(B) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 should be interpreted based on the service provider's perspective, not the recipient's. The Tribunal determined that the motor vehicles used for employee transportation were considered capital goods for the service provider, entitling the appellant to the credit. Precedents and a thorough analysis of relevant rules led to the decision to grant consequential relief to the appellant. en-us Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 May 2018 08:03:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359980 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing eligibility for CENVAT credit on services of transport for employees. It held that the exclusion clause in Rule 2(l)(B) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 should be interpreted based on the service provider's perspective, not the recipient's. The Tribunal determined that the motor vehicles used for employee transportation were considered capital goods for the service provider, entitling the appellant to the credit. Precedents and a thorough analysis of relevant rules led to the decision to grant consequential relief to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359980