<?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 1485 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367749</link>
    <description>Service tax paid under reverse charge on remuneration to a non-whole time director was treated as admissible Cenvat credit because the governing notifications fastened tax liability on the recipient for director services. On that statutory basis, the director&#039;s services were deemed to have been provided to the company, so the objection that no input service was received could not stand. The service therefore qualified as an input service and Cenvat credit was not deniable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2020 17:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=535853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1485 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367749</link>
      <description>Service tax paid under reverse charge on remuneration to a non-whole time director was treated as admissible Cenvat credit because the governing notifications fastened tax liability on the recipient for director services. On that statutory basis, the director&#039;s services were deemed to have been provided to the company, so the objection that no input service was received could not stand. The service therefore qualified as an input service and Cenvat credit was not deniable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>