<?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 (6) TMI 440 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772327</link>
    <description>CESTAT Bangalore partially allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit eligibility. Following tribunal directions from previous litigation, the adjudicating authority disallowed credit of Rs.97,24,249/- after verification. Credit was denied for AMC, Rent, Architect Fee, Professional Fees, and Car Repairs due to lack of documentary proof containing service tax component. Credit for Security, Audit Fee, E-filing, and Insurance was denied as ineligible inputs. The tribunal allowed CENVAT credit on all input services except where documentary proof was absent, reversed disallowances based on ineligibility without nexus citing precedents, and disallowed excess credit availed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2025 08:32:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=827480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 440 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772327</link>
      <description>CESTAT Bangalore partially allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit eligibility. Following tribunal directions from previous litigation, the adjudicating authority disallowed credit of Rs.97,24,249/- after verification. Credit was denied for AMC, Rent, Architect Fee, Professional Fees, and Car Repairs due to lack of documentary proof containing service tax component. Credit for Security, Audit Fee, E-filing, and Insurance was denied as ineligible inputs. The tribunal allowed CENVAT credit on all input services except where documentary proof was absent, reversed disallowances based on ineligibility without nexus citing precedents, and disallowed excess credit availed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>