<?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 758 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252624</link>
    <description>A Settlement Commission order directing issuance of a certificate of payment for countervailing duty was treated as sufficient to support CENVAT credit, because the certificate was issued pursuant to that order and the later CENVAT regime had already come into force; the earlier certification rule was therefore inapplicable. The same settlement also granted full immunity from penalty and fine for the matters covered, so no penalty proceedings could be initiated on the settled contraventions. The Tribunal&#039;s order was sustained and the departmental challenge failed, with the questions of law answered against the department and in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 758 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252624</link>
      <description>A Settlement Commission order directing issuance of a certificate of payment for countervailing duty was treated as sufficient to support CENVAT credit, because the certificate was issued pursuant to that order and the later CENVAT regime had already come into force; the earlier certification rule was therefore inapplicable. The same settlement also granted full immunity from penalty and fine for the matters covered, so no penalty proceedings could be initiated on the settled contraventions. The Tribunal&#039;s order was sustained and the departmental challenge failed, with the questions of law answered against the department and in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>