<?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 (9) TMI 376 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366640</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the order under challenge, ruling that brokerage/commission could be considered an eligible input service for availing Cenvat Credit. The decision was based on the retrospective nature of Rule 2 sub Rule 1 of CCR 2004, supported by legal interpretations favoring the appellant. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the appellants regarding the availing of Cenvat Credit on brokerage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2018 13:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 376 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366640</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the order under challenge, ruling that brokerage/commission could be considered an eligible input service for availing Cenvat Credit. The decision was based on the retrospective nature of Rule 2 sub Rule 1 of CCR 2004, supported by legal interpretations favoring the appellant. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the appellants regarding the availing of Cenvat Credit on brokerage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>