<?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 (4) TMI 879 - THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS &amp; SERVICES TAX &amp; C. Ex. RANCHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293640</link>
    <description>The Commissioner allowed the appeal, permitting the Appellant to avail CENVAT credit on service tax paid for GTA services related to the transportation of fly ash. The Commissioner emphasized the essential nature of fly ash removal for manufacturing activities and compliance with environmental laws, ruling that all services utilized for fly ash removal qualified as input services. The decision differentiated the case from a Supreme Court ruling, highlighting the continuous ownership of the goods by the Appellant and the absence of a sale of goods, ultimately setting aside the earlier order and granting consequential benefits under tax laws.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:10:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=637102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 879 - THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS &amp; SERVICES TAX &amp; C. Ex. RANCHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293640</link>
      <description>The Commissioner allowed the appeal, permitting the Appellant to avail CENVAT credit on service tax paid for GTA services related to the transportation of fly ash. The Commissioner emphasized the essential nature of fly ash removal for manufacturing activities and compliance with environmental laws, ruling that all services utilized for fly ash removal qualified as input services. The decision differentiated the case from a Supreme Court ruling, highlighting the continuous ownership of the goods by the Appellant and the absence of a sale of goods, ultimately setting aside the earlier order and granting consequential benefits under tax laws.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>