<?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 (9) TMI 454 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758210</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit denial for Business Support Services. Revenue denied credit claiming BSS services lacked nexus with appellant&#039;s manufacturing/output activities, citing Rule 2(l) amendment from 01/04/2011 excluding business activities from input service definition. Tribunal held that since Revenue previously accepted Tata Motors&#039; BSS classification without objection and service tax was properly paid and distributed to group companies including appellant, the credit was valid. Additionally, show cause notices issued in 2012 for period March 2007-2012 were barred by limitation. Impugned order set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:10:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767330" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 454 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758210</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit denial for Business Support Services. Revenue denied credit claiming BSS services lacked nexus with appellant&#039;s manufacturing/output activities, citing Rule 2(l) amendment from 01/04/2011 excluding business activities from input service definition. Tribunal held that since Revenue previously accepted Tata Motors&#039; BSS classification without objection and service tax was properly paid and distributed to group companies including appellant, the credit was valid. Additionally, show cause notices issued in 2012 for period March 2007-2012 were barred by limitation. Impugned order set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>