<?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 (10) TMI 621 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368655</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid under reverse charge for manpower supply was held admissible because the levy remained a tax on the taxable service itself, and payment by the recipient did not change its character. The Cenvat Credit Rules were read as not imposing a separate bar merely because the recipient was not the primary person liable to pay the tax, provided the service was received and tax stood paid. Denial of credit was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:47:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 621 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368655</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid under reverse charge for manpower supply was held admissible because the levy remained a tax on the taxable service itself, and payment by the recipient did not change its character. The Cenvat Credit Rules were read as not imposing a separate bar merely because the recipient was not the primary person liable to pay the tax, provided the service was received and tax stood paid. Denial of credit was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>