<?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 (3) TMI 1 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244544</link>
    <description>Capital goods were acquired when credit was admissible and the finished product was dutiable. The later exemption of the final product did not create any liability to pay interest for the intervening period before the capital goods were cleared, because the exemption notification did not impose such an interest burden on capital goods. The demand for interest was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2014 10:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 1 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244544</link>
      <description>Capital goods were acquired when credit was admissible and the finished product was dutiable. The later exemption of the final product did not create any liability to pay interest for the intervening period before the capital goods were cleared, because the exemption notification did not impose such an interest burden on capital goods. The demand for interest was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>