<?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>2014 (2) TMI 297 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243699</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the ineligibility of the CENVAT credit availed by the appellants, the correctness of the extended period of limitation invoked, and the imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment emphasized strict adherence to the definitions and provisions under CCR, 2004, and upheld the legal principles regarding input service distribution and manufacturer liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 297 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243699</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the ineligibility of the CENVAT credit availed by the appellants, the correctness of the extended period of limitation invoked, and the imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment emphasized strict adherence to the definitions and provisions under CCR, 2004, and upheld the legal principles regarding input service distribution and manufacturer liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>