<?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>2017 (12) TMI 1820 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298810</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad partially allowed the appeal concerning the admissibility of Cenvat credit on various services. While credit for Outdoor Catering Service, Hotel Service, and Insurance Premiums was permissible based on precedents, credit for Rent-a-Cab and Maintenance &amp;amp; Repair of vehicles services post 01.04.2011 was deemed inadmissible due to exclusions. The confusion surrounding Rent-a-Cab Service post 01.04.2011 exempted the appellant from penalty imposition, as the Tribunal found penalty unjustified due to regulatory uncertainty. The Tribunal&#039;s decision emphasized the importance of legal precedents and regulatory clarity in determining credit admissibility and penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Nov 2021 19:20:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=661722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1820 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298810</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad partially allowed the appeal concerning the admissibility of Cenvat credit on various services. While credit for Outdoor Catering Service, Hotel Service, and Insurance Premiums was permissible based on precedents, credit for Rent-a-Cab and Maintenance &amp;amp; Repair of vehicles services post 01.04.2011 was deemed inadmissible due to exclusions. The confusion surrounding Rent-a-Cab Service post 01.04.2011 exempted the appellant from penalty imposition, as the Tribunal found penalty unjustified due to regulatory uncertainty. The Tribunal&#039;s decision emphasized the importance of legal precedents and regulatory clarity in determining credit admissibility and penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298810</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>