<?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 (2) TMI 957 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375330</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the service tax paid on deposit insurance premiums to DICGC does not qualify as an &quot;input service,&quot; making the credit availed on such tax inadmissible. Rule 6(3B) does not allow claiming credit on ineligible services. Despite this, no penalties were imposed due to the interpretative nature of the issue. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the impugned orders modified to set aside the penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=558462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 957 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375330</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the service tax paid on deposit insurance premiums to DICGC does not qualify as an &quot;input service,&quot; making the credit availed on such tax inadmissible. Rule 6(3B) does not allow claiming credit on ineligible services. Despite this, no penalties were imposed due to the interpretative nature of the issue. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the impugned orders modified to set aside the penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>