<?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>2013 (3) TMI 115 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221348</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the order denying Cenvat credit, recovery, and penalty imposition to steel and iron manufacturers, allowing their appeal. The delay in availing credit was justified post a Supreme Court judgment, supported by the interpretation of rules and circulars emphasizing that immediate availing is not mandatory. The Tribunal found the department&#039;s argument for immediate availing flawed, considering the lack of a specified time limit and the circumstances surrounding the delayed credit availing. Previous tribunal decisions and the Board&#039;s circular supported the appellants&#039; position, leading to the favorable outcome.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 17:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 115 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221348</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the order denying Cenvat credit, recovery, and penalty imposition to steel and iron manufacturers, allowing their appeal. The delay in availing credit was justified post a Supreme Court judgment, supported by the interpretation of rules and circulars emphasizing that immediate availing is not mandatory. The Tribunal found the department&#039;s argument for immediate availing flawed, considering the lack of a specified time limit and the circumstances surrounding the delayed credit availing. Previous tribunal decisions and the Board&#039;s circular supported the appellants&#039; position, leading to the favorable outcome.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>