<?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>2019 (1) TMI 567 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373402</link>
    <description>Reversal of Cenvat credit with interest before the show cause notice satisfied the abatement condition for construction services, because the assessee was placed in the same position as if credit had not been taken; the related demand and penalty were set aside. Cenvat credit on scaffoldings was denied because the goods fell under Chapter 73, which is excluded from the definition of capital goods; the demand on that count was upheld. Extended limitation and penalty were not sustainable where the credit was disclosed in the Cenvat records and ST-3 returns and suppression was not established; most of the demand was time-barred and penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2019 06:47:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=552626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 567 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373402</link>
      <description>Reversal of Cenvat credit with interest before the show cause notice satisfied the abatement condition for construction services, because the assessee was placed in the same position as if credit had not been taken; the related demand and penalty were set aside. Cenvat credit on scaffoldings was denied because the goods fell under Chapter 73, which is excluded from the definition of capital goods; the demand on that count was upheld. Extended limitation and penalty were not sustainable where the credit was disclosed in the Cenvat records and ST-3 returns and suppression was not established; most of the demand was time-barred and penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>