<?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 (8) TMI 398 - CESTAT  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250448</link>
    <description>The Tribunal denied CENVAT credit on items used in the construction of supporting structures, ruling they were not eligible as inputs for capital goods. The penalty under Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, was waived due to the dispute&#039;s resolution post the previous decision. The demand for duty and interest was upheld, while the penalty was waived as the appellants did not act with malafide intentions. The impugned order was modified accordingly, confirming duty and interest demands but waiving the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=362214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 398 - CESTAT  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250448</link>
      <description>The Tribunal denied CENVAT credit on items used in the construction of supporting structures, ruling they were not eligible as inputs for capital goods. The penalty under Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, was waived due to the dispute&#039;s resolution post the previous decision. The demand for duty and interest was upheld, while the penalty was waived as the appellants did not act with malafide intentions. The impugned order was modified accordingly, confirming duty and interest demands but waiving the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>