<?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 (8) TMI 532 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365060</link>
    <description>Rent a cab service remained eligible for CENVAT credit because the post-01.04.2011 exclusion for renting of motor vehicles applied only where the vehicle was not capital goods; as the rented vehicle fell within the capital goods definition, denial of credit was unjustified. Convention service used for a workshop on maintenance of a bulk handling system was also treated as having a direct nexus with manufacture and removal of goods, so credit was admissible despite the service being described as optional. The demand was set aside on these two services, while the issue relating to construction service was left undisturbed subject to verification before the adjudicating authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2018 08:05:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 532 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365060</link>
      <description>Rent a cab service remained eligible for CENVAT credit because the post-01.04.2011 exclusion for renting of motor vehicles applied only where the vehicle was not capital goods; as the rented vehicle fell within the capital goods definition, denial of credit was unjustified. Convention service used for a workshop on maintenance of a bulk handling system was also treated as having a direct nexus with manufacture and removal of goods, so credit was admissible despite the service being described as optional. The demand was set aside on these two services, while the issue relating to construction service was left undisturbed subject to verification before the adjudicating authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>