<?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 (6) TMI 590 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212944</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant CENVAT credit on capital goods received from the principal manufacturer for job-work activities. The show-cause notice alleging suppression of facts was deemed unsustainable due to the extended limitation period. Relying on the Hongo India case, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the credit as the capital goods were supplied for manufacturing goods with appropriate duty payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 590 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212944</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant CENVAT credit on capital goods received from the principal manufacturer for job-work activities. The show-cause notice alleging suppression of facts was deemed unsustainable due to the extended limitation period. Relying on the Hongo India case, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the credit as the capital goods were supplied for manufacturing goods with appropriate duty payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>