<?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 (2) TMI 365 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32500</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit could be used only in the manner permitted by the credit rules, and service tax payable by a recipient of Goods Transport Agency services under a legal fiction was not tax on an output service provided by that recipient. As the recipient did not become the provider of the taxable transport service, the liability could not be discharged through Cenvat credit and had to be paid in cash. The demand for cash payment was therefore unsustainable, and the penalty did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71140" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 365 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32500</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit could be used only in the manner permitted by the credit rules, and service tax payable by a recipient of Goods Transport Agency services under a legal fiction was not tax on an output service provided by that recipient. As the recipient did not become the provider of the taxable transport service, the liability could not be discharged through Cenvat credit and had to be paid in cash. The demand for cash payment was therefore unsustainable, and the penalty did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>