https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757083 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal, setting aside demands on three grounds. First, regarding GTA services under reverse charge mechanism, the tribunal held that while service tax liability existed, CENVAT credit could be utilized for payment, following Gujarat HC precedent in Panchmahal Steel Ltd. Second, CENVAT credit on warranty services through authorized service stations was permitted, as repair and maintenance during warranty period qualify as input services under CCR 2004. Third, the notification benefit disallowance for imported AC installation services was invalid since service tax was not leviable on indivisible contracts involving goods supply before June 2007. All demands, interest, and penalties were set aside. en-us Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Aug 2024 20:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757083 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal, setting aside demands on three grounds. First, regarding GTA services under reverse charge mechanism, the tribunal held that while service tax liability existed, CENVAT credit could be utilized for payment, following Gujarat HC precedent in Panchmahal Steel Ltd. Second, CENVAT credit on warranty services through authorized service stations was permitted, as repair and maintenance during warranty period qualify as input services under CCR 2004. Third, the notification benefit disallowance for imported AC installation services was invalid since service tax was not leviable on indivisible contracts involving goods supply before June 2007. All demands, interest, and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757083