<?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 529 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764467</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai ruled on input service credit eligibility for various services. The tribunal held that road side assistance service qualifies for input service credit as it constitutes post-sale customer facilitation included in assessable value under Section 4(3) of Central Excise Act. However, credit on investment study services was denied as it lacked nexus with manufacturing business. Service tax credit on demurrage charges was allowed being procurement-related. Interest demand on wrongly availed but unutilized credit was set aside, citing precedents that mere wrong availment without utilization doesn&#039;t attract interest liability. Penalty was also set aside due to genuine interpretation issues without intent to evade. Appeal was partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2025 16:20:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=788176" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 529 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764467</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai ruled on input service credit eligibility for various services. The tribunal held that road side assistance service qualifies for input service credit as it constitutes post-sale customer facilitation included in assessable value under Section 4(3) of Central Excise Act. However, credit on investment study services was denied as it lacked nexus with manufacturing business. Service tax credit on demurrage charges was allowed being procurement-related. Interest demand on wrongly availed but unutilized credit was set aside, citing precedents that mere wrong availment without utilization doesn&#039;t attract interest liability. Penalty was also set aside due to genuine interpretation issues without intent to evade. Appeal was partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>