<?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 (12) TMI 170 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34136</link>
    <description>Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits recovery of wrongly taken and utilised input service credit under the statutory machinery applicable to the assessee&#039;s status; for a manufacturer, Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was held prima facie maintainable, not Section 73 of the Finance Act alone. The tribunal also found the extended limitation period prima facie invocable because admissibility of credit had to be self-assessed and the relevant claims were not properly disclosed. On the pre-deposit issue, the appellants failed to show a strong prima facie entitlement to disputed credits for mobile, rent-a-cab, security and association charges, so complete waiver was declined and only partial interim relief was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 170 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34136</link>
      <description>Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits recovery of wrongly taken and utilised input service credit under the statutory machinery applicable to the assessee&#039;s status; for a manufacturer, Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was held prima facie maintainable, not Section 73 of the Finance Act alone. The tribunal also found the extended limitation period prima facie invocable because admissibility of credit had to be self-assessed and the relevant claims were not properly disclosed. On the pre-deposit issue, the appellants failed to show a strong prima facie entitlement to disputed credits for mobile, rent-a-cab, security and association charges, so complete waiver was declined and only partial interim relief was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>