<?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 (7) TMI 842 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774774</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit eligibility on various services. The tribunal permitted credit on tower-related services (Rs.88,86,165), commission to agents/dealers (Rs.85,44,785), outdoor catering for business promotion (Rs.7,16,762), and police booth maintenance for advertisement (Rs.1,35,656). Credit was also allowed for value-added services (Rs.10,363) and related debit notes (Rs.3,59,018). The appellant voluntarily reversed healthcare services credit (Rs.9,368) and agreed to reverse employee insurance credit (Rs.94,333). The tribunal ruled against extended time limitation, citing complex interpretational issues and contradictory precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2025 17:20:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=836122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 842 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774774</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit eligibility on various services. The tribunal permitted credit on tower-related services (Rs.88,86,165), commission to agents/dealers (Rs.85,44,785), outdoor catering for business promotion (Rs.7,16,762), and police booth maintenance for advertisement (Rs.1,35,656). Credit was also allowed for value-added services (Rs.10,363) and related debit notes (Rs.3,59,018). The appellant voluntarily reversed healthcare services credit (Rs.9,368) and agreed to reverse employee insurance credit (Rs.94,333). The tribunal ruled against extended time limitation, citing complex interpretational issues and contradictory precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774774</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>