<?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>2015 (2) TMI 41 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256041</link>
    <description>Treatment of used capital goods removed by an assessee had to be examined under the Cenvat credit rules applicable to the relevant period, and the statutory framework, including the amended rule position and the departmental circular, had to be applied in the light of the Larger Bench ruling. As the impugned order did not properly apply that ruling, it was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:28:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 41 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256041</link>
      <description>Treatment of used capital goods removed by an assessee had to be examined under the Cenvat credit rules applicable to the relevant period, and the statutory framework, including the amended rule position and the departmental circular, had to be applied in the light of the Larger Bench ruling. As the impugned order did not properly apply that ruling, it was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>