<?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>2012 (9) TMI 526 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216718</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification and quantification of Cenvat credit for input services. It concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had appropriately ordered re-quantification and verification in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of, emphasizing the necessity for the adjudicating authority to determine the actual amount of Cenvat credit available to the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 526 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216718</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification and quantification of Cenvat credit for input services. It concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had appropriately ordered re-quantification and verification in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of, emphasizing the necessity for the adjudicating authority to determine the actual amount of Cenvat credit available to the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>