<?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 773 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360209</link>
    <description>The case focused on the issue of availing Cenvat credit on rent-a-cab services. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand to deny credit, citing the Tribunal&#039;s decision in the Marvel Vinyls Ltd. case, which clarified that the exclusion clause does not apply to renting cab services for the recipient. The judgment emphasized the distinction between provider and recipient contexts, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 May 2018 08:43:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 773 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360209</link>
      <description>The case focused on the issue of availing Cenvat credit on rent-a-cab services. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand to deny credit, citing the Tribunal&#039;s decision in the Marvel Vinyls Ltd. case, which clarified that the exclusion clause does not apply to renting cab services for the recipient. The judgment emphasized the distinction between provider and recipient contexts, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>