<?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>2012 (12) TMI 987 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171996</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit attached to a leased unit was treated as continuing in the transferor&#039;s account and therefore transferable to the assessee under Rule 8 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Tribunal&#039;s factual finding that duplicate invoices were traced late and the credit was availed after 1-4-2003 was treated as a technical lapse only, not a substantive bar to credit. On those facts, the credit claim was upheld and the court found no question of law to arise.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:29:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 987 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171996</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit attached to a leased unit was treated as continuing in the transferor&#039;s account and therefore transferable to the assessee under Rule 8 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Tribunal&#039;s factual finding that duplicate invoices were traced late and the credit was availed after 1-4-2003 was treated as a technical lapse only, not a substantive bar to credit. On those facts, the credit claim was upheld and the court found no question of law to arise.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>