<?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>2011 (2) TMI 1049 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209185</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, setting aside the order denying Cenvat credit based on alleged overvaluation by the supplier. The Tribunal emphasized that the supplier was not under the jurisdiction of the same Commissioner, had not been issued a show-cause notice on valuation, and the appellant had paid the invoiced amount. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant&#039;s arguments, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jul 2013 02:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182637" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1049 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209185</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, setting aside the order denying Cenvat credit based on alleged overvaluation by the supplier. The Tribunal emphasized that the supplier was not under the jurisdiction of the same Commissioner, had not been issued a show-cause notice on valuation, and the appellant had paid the invoiced amount. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant&#039;s arguments, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>