<?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 1452 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775384</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on insurance service and authorised service station service used for business vehicles was treated as admissible for the period before 01.04.2011, because the pre-amendment definition of input service was broad enough to cover services used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture and business activities. The later exclusion introduced from 01.04.2011 was not applied retrospectively to deny credit already earned, and no exclusive personal use was shown. The record also did not support suppression or intent to evade, so the extended period and penalty were not sustainable; the matter was remanded only to verify whether the services were actually availed before 01.04.2011.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2025 08:28:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1452 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775384</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on insurance service and authorised service station service used for business vehicles was treated as admissible for the period before 01.04.2011, because the pre-amendment definition of input service was broad enough to cover services used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture and business activities. The later exclusion introduced from 01.04.2011 was not applied retrospectively to deny credit already earned, and no exclusive personal use was shown. The record also did not support suppression or intent to evade, so the extended period and penalty were not sustainable; the matter was remanded only to verify whether the services were actually availed before 01.04.2011.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775384</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>