<?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>2020 (2) TMI 174 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391730</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for renting immovable property used at branch offices for marketing, customer coordination, product development, warranty support, troubleshooting and training was treated as admissible where the activities were connected with the assessee&#039;s business and sales of manufactured goods. The definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was applied broadly to cover advertisement, sales promotion and allied business-support functions, and credit was not denied merely because the premises were outside the factory or because the ER-1 return did not describe the service in the format preferred by the department. The demand, interest and penalty were held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2020 11:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=602756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 174 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391730</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for renting immovable property used at branch offices for marketing, customer coordination, product development, warranty support, troubleshooting and training was treated as admissible where the activities were connected with the assessee&#039;s business and sales of manufactured goods. The definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was applied broadly to cover advertisement, sales promotion and allied business-support functions, and credit was not denied merely because the premises were outside the factory or because the ER-1 return did not describe the service in the format preferred by the department. The demand, interest and penalty were held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>