<?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>2023 (1) TMI 147 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432400</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on input services used for a new technology centre could not be denied merely because the amended definition excluded services for setting up a new unit. The record showed that credit was not claimed on fresh construction, and the identified services were used in relation to the assessee&#039;s taxable output services. On those facts, the Tribunal&#039;s view that the exclusion did not apply was upheld, and the credit claim was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:25:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=700712" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 147 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432400</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on input services used for a new technology centre could not be denied merely because the amended definition excluded services for setting up a new unit. The record showed that credit was not claimed on fresh construction, and the identified services were used in relation to the assessee&#039;s taxable output services. On those facts, the Tribunal&#039;s view that the exclusion did not apply was upheld, and the credit claim was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>