<?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 (6) TMI 271 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248367</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, determining that the appellants could choose the more beneficial notification when two exemption notifications were operative simultaneously. Additionally, the Tribunal held that CENVAT Credit was permissible under Rule 6(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for goods exported under bond.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 16:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357209" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 271 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248367</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, determining that the appellants could choose the more beneficial notification when two exemption notifications were operative simultaneously. Additionally, the Tribunal held that CENVAT Credit was permissible under Rule 6(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for goods exported under bond.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>