<?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>2010 (12) TMI 166 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202923</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Commissioner to re-examine issues regarding interest demand and penalties. The Tribunal emphasized the retrospective application of Explanation III, affirming the appellant&#039;s entitlement to CENVAT credit for inputs used in goods exported or removed to 100% EOU. The penalty imposed was deemed unjustified and set aside for further review by the Commissioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 166 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202923</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Commissioner to re-examine issues regarding interest demand and penalties. The Tribunal emphasized the retrospective application of Explanation III, affirming the appellant&#039;s entitlement to CENVAT credit for inputs used in goods exported or removed to 100% EOU. The penalty imposed was deemed unjustified and set aside for further review by the Commissioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>