<?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 (5) TMI 462 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233877</link>
    <description>Supplies made to SEZ Developers before 31.12.2008 were treated as covered by Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal noted that SEZ Developers were expressly brought within the rule from December 2008, but prior Tribunal decisions had already recognised the benefit for the earlier period, so a restrictive reading based on the amendment date was not accepted. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee received consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 10:07:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 462 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233877</link>
      <description>Supplies made to SEZ Developers before 31.12.2008 were treated as covered by Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal noted that SEZ Developers were expressly brought within the rule from December 2008, but prior Tribunal decisions had already recognised the benefit for the earlier period, so a restrictive reading based on the amendment date was not accepted. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee received consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>