<?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 505 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250555</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the stay petition, stating that the appellant was entitled to utilize the suspended credit during the period when it remained in question due to legal uncertainties. This decision was based on the clarification provided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, indicating that there was no basis for directing the appellant to deposit any amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:14:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 505 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250555</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the stay petition, stating that the appellant was entitled to utilize the suspended credit during the period when it remained in question due to legal uncertainties. This decision was based on the clarification provided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, indicating that there was no basis for directing the appellant to deposit any amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>