<?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 1417 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369451</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on services such as renting of immovable property, chartered accountant, repairs and maintenance, advertisement membership and travelling services was examined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, with credit sustained for admissible services and the assessee&#039;s concession accepted for general insurance services. Under Rule 14, as amended from 01.04.2012, interest was treated as recoverable only where wrongly availed credit was both taken and utilised; since the disputed credit was not utilised and substantial credit balance remained, interest was not payable. Penalty was deleted because the dispute arose within the normal period, most of the credit was allowed, and there was no suppression or mala fide intent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1417 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369451</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on services such as renting of immovable property, chartered accountant, repairs and maintenance, advertisement membership and travelling services was examined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, with credit sustained for admissible services and the assessee&#039;s concession accepted for general insurance services. Under Rule 14, as amended from 01.04.2012, interest was treated as recoverable only where wrongly availed credit was both taken and utilised; since the disputed credit was not utilised and substantial credit balance remained, interest was not payable. Penalty was deleted because the dispute arose within the normal period, most of the credit was allowed, and there was no suppression or mala fide intent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>