<?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 1498 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366026</link>
    <description>The denial of credit for business development services was set aside, and the penalty imposed under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was revoked. The appellant successfully argued that the services fell within the definition of input service during the relevant period, supported by a previous decision. The judge found the denial unjustified and allowed the credit of Rs. 92,700 for the business development service, leading to the setting aside of the penalty. The appeal was partly allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2018 06:13:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532278" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1498 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366026</link>
      <description>The denial of credit for business development services was set aside, and the penalty imposed under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was revoked. The appellant successfully argued that the services fell within the definition of input service during the relevant period, supported by a previous decision. The judge found the denial unjustified and allowed the credit of Rs. 92,700 for the business development service, leading to the setting aside of the penalty. The appeal was partly allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>