<?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>2008 (8) TMI 66 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31575</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for goods transport agency services used to move finished goods from the factory to a consignment agent&#039;s premises was admissible because that premises was treated as the place of removal. The analysis noted that property in the goods did not pass to the consignment agent and transportation expense remained with the manufacturer, bringing the outward freight within the relevant credit framework. Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70222" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 66 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31575</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on service tax paid for goods transport agency services used to move finished goods from the factory to a consignment agent&#039;s premises was admissible because that premises was treated as the place of removal. The analysis noted that property in the goods did not pass to the consignment agent and transportation expense remained with the manufacturer, bringing the outward freight within the relevant credit framework. Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31575</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>