<?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 (7) TMI 686 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363378</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that post-2008, CENVAT credit on GTA services is not admissible beyond the factory gate to the buyer&#039;s premises. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, citing the judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ultratech Ltd., which clarified the eligibility limit for CENVAT credit on GTA services. Despite conflicting judgments and arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, stating that the credit was not eligible in this case and dismissing the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:31:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 686 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363378</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that post-2008, CENVAT credit on GTA services is not admissible beyond the factory gate to the buyer&#039;s premises. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, citing the judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ultratech Ltd., which clarified the eligibility limit for CENVAT credit on GTA services. Despite conflicting judgments and arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, stating that the credit was not eligible in this case and dismissing the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>