<?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 (4) TMI 34 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750853</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai ruled on CENVAT credit eligibility for marine insurance premiums paid for software engineers. Revenue contended that post-April 2011 amendments excluded health/life insurance primarily for personal employee use from input service definition. The tribunal found this a mixed question of fact and law requiring verification. Commissioner (Appeals) remand for factual examination was upheld as the definition covers services used in business activities, not restricted to capital goods only. Extended limitation period and penalty were set aside as the dispute involved statutory interpretation without mis-declaration or evasion intent. Appeal disposed through remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=748798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 34 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750853</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai ruled on CENVAT credit eligibility for marine insurance premiums paid for software engineers. Revenue contended that post-April 2011 amendments excluded health/life insurance primarily for personal employee use from input service definition. The tribunal found this a mixed question of fact and law requiring verification. Commissioner (Appeals) remand for factual examination was upheld as the definition covers services used in business activities, not restricted to capital goods only. Extended limitation period and penalty were set aside as the dispute involved statutory interpretation without mis-declaration or evasion intent. Appeal disposed through remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>