<?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 (10) TMI 1247 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265972</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal based on the limitation in raising the demand. The issue of admissibility of CENVAT credit on disputed items was considered disputable, with divergent views existing. The Tribunal concluded that the extended period for demand could not be applied due to the timeline of events, leading to the appeal being allowed solely on the basis of limitation without expressing views on the merits of the CENVAT credit issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:54:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1247 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265972</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal based on the limitation in raising the demand. The issue of admissibility of CENVAT credit on disputed items was considered disputable, with divergent views existing. The Tribunal concluded that the extended period for demand could not be applied due to the timeline of events, leading to the appeal being allowed solely on the basis of limitation without expressing views on the merits of the CENVAT credit issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265972</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>