<?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>2007 (2) TMI 484 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121184</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the denial of credit and penalty imposition against the appellants due to the supplier&#039;s failure to pay the correct duty amount on inputs received. The Tribunal found that the majority of the duty had been recovered from the supplier, and there was no evidence of the appellants&#039; involvement in any fraud. Therefore, the denial of credit was deemed unjustified, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:11:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 484 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121184</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the denial of credit and penalty imposition against the appellants due to the supplier&#039;s failure to pay the correct duty amount on inputs received. The Tribunal found that the majority of the duty had been recovered from the supplier, and there was no evidence of the appellants&#039; involvement in any fraud. Therefore, the denial of credit was deemed unjustified, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>