<?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 143 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221376</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Luxmi Metal Industries, setting aside the denial of credit and penalty imposition. The judgment emphasized that the appellant acted in good faith based on valid invoices and could not be held accountable for any fraudulent activities of the intermediate suppliers. The decision also highlighted the importance of adhering to the limitation period for raising allegations and penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 06:49:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 143 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221376</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Luxmi Metal Industries, setting aside the denial of credit and penalty imposition. The judgment emphasized that the appellant acted in good faith based on valid invoices and could not be held accountable for any fraudulent activities of the intermediate suppliers. The decision also highlighted the importance of adhering to the limitation period for raising allegations and penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>