<?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>2015 (2) TMI 1297 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278335</link>
    <description>Towers and pre-fabricated shelters fixed to the earth were treated as immovable property and therefore not eligible for Cenvat credit as capital goods or inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; credit was, however, accepted for employee mediclaim insurance. The extended period of demand could not be invoked because the assessees had disclosed credit in returns, audits had occurred, and the dispute was interpretative rather than based on fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. Penalties were also held unsustainable on the same bona fide and disclosure-based facts. Only the within-limitation demand, with interest, remained intact.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2019 09:26:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=555024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1297 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278335</link>
      <description>Towers and pre-fabricated shelters fixed to the earth were treated as immovable property and therefore not eligible for Cenvat credit as capital goods or inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; credit was, however, accepted for employee mediclaim insurance. The extended period of demand could not be invoked because the assessees had disclosed credit in returns, audits had occurred, and the dispute was interpretative rather than based on fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. Penalties were also held unsustainable on the same bona fide and disclosure-based facts. Only the within-limitation demand, with interest, remained intact.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>