<?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 1651 - CESTAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266376</link>
    <description>The appellant appealed against the denial of Cenvat credit taken suo moto, resulting in a demand for duty, interest, and penalty. The tribunal held that the appellant correctly took suo moto credit for duty paid twice, citing relevant precedents. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the permissibility of taking suo moto credit in cases of double duty payment, stressing procedural requirements and relevant precedents under the Central Excise Act, 1944.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2015 21:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1651 - CESTAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266376</link>
      <description>The appellant appealed against the denial of Cenvat credit taken suo moto, resulting in a demand for duty, interest, and penalty. The tribunal held that the appellant correctly took suo moto credit for duty paid twice, citing relevant precedents. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the permissibility of taking suo moto credit in cases of double duty payment, stressing procedural requirements and relevant precedents under the Central Excise Act, 1944.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>