<?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 626 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368660</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Service Tax paid on the Product Recall Insurance Policy was eligible for Cenvat Credit as it was considered a part of the cost of the final product and not a post-removal expense. Emphasizing judicial discipline and the relevance of previous orders, the Tribunal overturned the decisions of the lower authorities and allowed the appeals, stating that the expenses incurred for the security of goods fell within the definition of input services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:48:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538001" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 626 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368660</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Service Tax paid on the Product Recall Insurance Policy was eligible for Cenvat Credit as it was considered a part of the cost of the final product and not a post-removal expense. Emphasizing judicial discipline and the relevance of previous orders, the Tribunal overturned the decisions of the lower authorities and allowed the appeals, stating that the expenses incurred for the security of goods fell within the definition of input services.</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=368660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>