<?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 1666 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266391</link>
    <description>Where Cenvat credit had to be reversed on clearance of dies as scrap under Rule 3(4), failure to reverse it at the time of clearance attracted interest for the period until reversal, and the interest demand was sustained. Penalty under Section 11AC was not leviable because the statutory ingredients for its invocation were not established on the facts, and the penalty was set aside. The appeal thus succeeded only on the penalty issue, while the interest liability remained upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:38:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1666 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266391</link>
      <description>Where Cenvat credit had to be reversed on clearance of dies as scrap under Rule 3(4), failure to reverse it at the time of clearance attracted interest for the period until reversal, and the interest demand was sustained. Penalty under Section 11AC was not leviable because the statutory ingredients for its invocation were not established on the facts, and the penalty was set aside. The appeal thus succeeded only on the penalty issue, while the interest liability remained upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>