<?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 (6) TMI 676 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361849</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT. The Court affirmed that registration is not mandatory for claiming CENVAT credit refunds, referencing its previous decision. It also ruled in favor of the respondent regarding the eligibility of CENVAT credit for services received at unregistered premises and car parking charges. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2018 10:02:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 676 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361849</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT. The Court affirmed that registration is not mandatory for claiming CENVAT credit refunds, referencing its previous decision. It also ruled in favor of the respondent regarding the eligibility of CENVAT credit for services received at unregistered premises and car parking charges. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>