<?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>2021 (10) TMI 186 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413134</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order except for the credit availed on the dismantling of towers, and held that the appellants were entitled to CENVAT credit on the disputed inputs, capital goods, and services. The Tribunal also ruled that the extended period could not be invoked in the subsequent show cause notices, and the imposition of penalties was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2021 08:43:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (10) TMI 186 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413134</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order except for the credit availed on the dismantling of towers, and held that the appellants were entitled to CENVAT credit on the disputed inputs, capital goods, and services. The Tribunal also ruled that the extended period could not be invoked in the subsequent show cause notices, and the imposition of penalties was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>