<?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>2025 (1) TMI 137 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764075</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai dismissed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit claim on service tax paid for windmill lease rentals and operation/maintenance charges. The tribunal found that under the agreement between appellant and the service provider, the service provider bore operation and maintenance costs and was responsible for electricity generation, not acting on appellant&#039;s behalf. The agreement was solely for electricity supply with no mention of windmill lease arrangements. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision denying input service credit and invoking extended limitation period, concluding the appellant was not entitled to the claimed credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2025 14:32:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=786110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 137 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764075</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai dismissed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit claim on service tax paid for windmill lease rentals and operation/maintenance charges. The tribunal found that under the agreement between appellant and the service provider, the service provider bore operation and maintenance costs and was responsible for electricity generation, not acting on appellant&#039;s behalf. The agreement was solely for electricity supply with no mention of windmill lease arrangements. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision denying input service credit and invoking extended limitation period, concluding the appellant was not entitled to the claimed credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>