<?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 (11) TMI 1526 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371183</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on employee medical insurance service for the period before 1-4-2011 was treated as admissible under Rule 2(l) because the pre-amendment definition of input service covered services used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture and business activities. Settled precedent was followed to hold that group health insurance for employees had a sufficient nexus with business operations, and the later specific exclusion for life insurance and health insurance supported the view that such services had fallen within the earlier broader ambit. The Revenue challenge was rejected on the basis of binding earlier decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:22:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1526 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371183</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on employee medical insurance service for the period before 1-4-2011 was treated as admissible under Rule 2(l) because the pre-amendment definition of input service covered services used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture and business activities. Settled precedent was followed to hold that group health insurance for employees had a sufficient nexus with business operations, and the later specific exclusion for life insurance and health insurance supported the view that such services had fallen within the earlier broader ambit. The Revenue challenge was rejected on the basis of binding earlier decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371183</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>