<?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 (7) TMI 160 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31579</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision allowing the respondent-assessee to claim Cenvat credit on mobile phone services for phones used by employees and officers, rejecting the appellant&#039;s argument that such services did not qualify as &#039;input service&#039; under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The court emphasized that the activities of staff using mobile phones were related to the business of the assessee, making them eligible for credit. The court also clarified that the Circular cited by the appellant was not applicable in this context, and affirmed that the mobile service provider&#039;s activities constituted &#039;input service&#039; for the assessee under the Rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70226" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 160 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31579</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision allowing the respondent-assessee to claim Cenvat credit on mobile phone services for phones used by employees and officers, rejecting the appellant&#039;s argument that such services did not qualify as &#039;input service&#039; under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The court emphasized that the activities of staff using mobile phones were related to the business of the assessee, making them eligible for credit. The court also clarified that the Circular cited by the appellant was not applicable in this context, and affirmed that the mobile service provider&#039;s activities constituted &#039;input service&#039; for the assessee under the Rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>