<?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 1553 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266278</link>
    <description>The appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise &amp;amp; Service Tax challenging the final order of CESTAT were dismissed by the High Court. The dispute centered on availing exemption under Notification No. 96/2004-Cus for imported raw materials and entitlement to CENVAT credit. The Court upheld the decision favoring the Assessee, emphasizing the absence of a notification expressly denying CENVAT credit when using DEPB scrips issued under the FTP 2002-07 for customs duty payments. As the Department did not appeal the High Court&#039;s decision, the appeals were dismissed due to the lack of a substantial question of law for consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 17:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1553 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266278</link>
      <description>The appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise &amp;amp; Service Tax challenging the final order of CESTAT were dismissed by the High Court. The dispute centered on availing exemption under Notification No. 96/2004-Cus for imported raw materials and entitlement to CENVAT credit. The Court upheld the decision favoring the Assessee, emphasizing the absence of a notification expressly denying CENVAT credit when using DEPB scrips issued under the FTP 2002-07 for customs duty payments. As the Department did not appeal the High Court&#039;s decision, the appeals were dismissed due to the lack of a substantial question of law for consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>