<?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 (11) TMI 232 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387983</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was held admissible on sales promotion, customer care and training services for the relevant period because, before 1.4.2011, the definition of input services covered &quot;activities relating to business,&quot; and later the services were found to form part of the manufacturer&#039;s commercial support structure. Customer care for consumer grievance redressal was treated as linked to product support and sales promotion, and the absence of an express warranty did not break the nexus with manufacture. The extended period of limitation was also held inapplicable because the record did not show positive suppression of facts, particularly where earlier audits had not objected to the same services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2019 08:31:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 232 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387983</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was held admissible on sales promotion, customer care and training services for the relevant period because, before 1.4.2011, the definition of input services covered &quot;activities relating to business,&quot; and later the services were found to form part of the manufacturer&#039;s commercial support structure. Customer care for consumer grievance redressal was treated as linked to product support and sales promotion, and the absence of an express warranty did not break the nexus with manufacture. The extended period of limitation was also held inapplicable because the record did not show positive suppression of facts, particularly where earlier audits had not objected to the same services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>