<?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>Allegations Dismissed: Rule 4A(1) and Rule 3 Misapplied to Service Recipient in CENVAT Credit Case.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=57401</link>
    <description>CENVAT Credit - Cargo Handling Services - duty paying invoices - supplementary invoices - the allegations of adjudicating authority that the appellant have violated the provisions of Rule 4A(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 3 of the Point of Taxation Rules, is also erroneous because the said Rules are applicable to service provider and not to service recipient. - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:58:26 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:58:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=640431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Allegations Dismissed: Rule 4A(1) and Rule 3 Misapplied to Service Recipient in CENVAT Credit Case.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=57401</link>
      <description>CENVAT Credit - Cargo Handling Services - duty paying invoices - supplementary invoices - the allegations of adjudicating authority that the appellant have violated the provisions of Rule 4A(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 3 of the Point of Taxation Rules, is also erroneous because the said Rules are applicable to service provider and not to service recipient. - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:58:26 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=57401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>