<?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>2026 (4) TMI 1224 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790155</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on services with nexus to business operations was admissible for the period before 01.04.2011 because the then-wide definition of input service covered manpower, insurance, cleaning, catering and repairs. After 01.04.2011, the amended exclusion clause disallowed credit on construction, civil works, works contract and similar services used for building or civil structures, while manpower, insurance, cleaning, pest control and repairs and maintenance not amounting to new construction remained eligible. Interest was confined to the portion of credit ultimately held inadmissible, and penalty was not sustained because the dispute depended on interpretation of law and required re-quantification of eligible and ineligible credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 08:48:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1224 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790155</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on services with nexus to business operations was admissible for the period before 01.04.2011 because the then-wide definition of input service covered manpower, insurance, cleaning, catering and repairs. After 01.04.2011, the amended exclusion clause disallowed credit on construction, civil works, works contract and similar services used for building or civil structures, while manpower, insurance, cleaning, pest control and repairs and maintenance not amounting to new construction remained eligible. Interest was confined to the portion of credit ultimately held inadmissible, and penalty was not sustained because the dispute depended on interpretation of law and required re-quantification of eligible and ineligible credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>