<?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 (8) TMI 261 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384072</link>
    <description>Input services used for providing export output services were treated as eligible input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, so CENVAT credit and consequential refund under Rule 5 were allowed for the admissible services. The appellant agreed to reverse credit for specified excluded services, including Phonographic Performance, Testing of Food &amp; Water Sample for Canteen, Video Projection Agency Service, and Rent-a-cab Service. A mere change in the registered office address did not disentitle credit on invoices addressed to the earlier office, so the remand for further verification on that point was held unnecessary and set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2019 07:37:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 261 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384072</link>
      <description>Input services used for providing export output services were treated as eligible input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, so CENVAT credit and consequential refund under Rule 5 were allowed for the admissible services. The appellant agreed to reverse credit for specified excluded services, including Phonographic Performance, Testing of Food &amp; Water Sample for Canteen, Video Projection Agency Service, and Rent-a-cab Service. A mere change in the registered office address did not disentitle credit on invoices addressed to the earlier office, so the remand for further verification on that point was held unnecessary and set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>