<?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>2008 (11) TMI 498 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125011</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on capital goods allegedly intended exclusively for manufacturing exempted goods had to be examined first, because that threshold eligibility issue was the foundation of the Revenue&#039;s challenge. The adjudicating authority erred by moving straight to limitation for part of the demand without deciding admissibility of credit on merits. As the core issue remained unadjudicated, the matter required fresh consideration of all relevant issues on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:50:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 498 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125011</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on capital goods allegedly intended exclusively for manufacturing exempted goods had to be examined first, because that threshold eligibility issue was the foundation of the Revenue&#039;s challenge. The adjudicating authority erred by moving straight to limitation for part of the demand without deciding admissibility of credit on merits. As the core issue remained unadjudicated, the matter required fresh consideration of all relevant issues on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125011</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>