<?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 (10) TMI 162 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252028</link>
    <description>Credit-related relief was upheld because the assessee had expressly raised the Cenvat credit defence in reply to the show cause notice, and the adjudicating and appellate authorities only dealt with that pleaded contention. As the finding remained within the scope of the notice and proceedings, the authorities did not exceed their jurisdiction, and no infirmity was found in the impugned orders. The revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2015 15:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 162 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252028</link>
      <description>Credit-related relief was upheld because the assessee had expressly raised the Cenvat credit defence in reply to the show cause notice, and the adjudicating and appellate authorities only dealt with that pleaded contention. As the finding remained within the scope of the notice and proceedings, the authorities did not exceed their jurisdiction, and no infirmity was found in the impugned orders. The revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>