<?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>2024 (1) TMI 778 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448379</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit on input services received prior to registration. The tribunal held that input services used for providing output services are eligible for credit regardless of timing, as statutory provisions don&#039;t impose time limits or require one-to-one correlation between input service receipt and output service provision. Following the Jindal Steel Power precedent, the tribunal ruled that services received from April-October 2012, before November 2012 registration, were essential for subsequent output services and thus eligible for credit. The appellate authority&#039;s order was set aside as it merely reproduced the original order without proper consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2024 08:59:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=740418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 778 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448379</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit on input services received prior to registration. The tribunal held that input services used for providing output services are eligible for credit regardless of timing, as statutory provisions don&#039;t impose time limits or require one-to-one correlation between input service receipt and output service provision. Following the Jindal Steel Power precedent, the tribunal ruled that services received from April-October 2012, before November 2012 registration, were essential for subsequent output services and thus eligible for credit. The appellate authority&#039;s order was set aside as it merely reproduced the original order without proper consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448379</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>