<?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 821 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244227</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the denial of remission of duty under Rule 21 for Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to goods destroyed in a fire accident. Relying on precedent cases, the Tribunal held that there was no requirement to reverse the credit on inputs used in manufacturing final products lost to natural causes. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of contradictory decisions to challenge the settled legal position, ultimately granting the appeal and providing any necessary consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:13:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346683" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 821 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244227</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the denial of remission of duty under Rule 21 for Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to goods destroyed in a fire accident. Relying on precedent cases, the Tribunal held that there was no requirement to reverse the credit on inputs used in manufacturing final products lost to natural causes. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of contradictory decisions to challenge the settled legal position, ultimately granting the appeal and providing any necessary consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>