<?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 2210 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266936</link>
    <description>The appellant successfully appealed against an order demanding duty, interest, and penalty for excess cenvat credit availed due to discounts provided by the supplier, M/s. Tata Steels Ltd. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that since the supplier did not claim a refund of the excess duty paid, the appellant rightfully availed the cenvat credit. As a result, the impugned order demanding duty, interest, and penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2015 08:32:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=403268" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2210 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266936</link>
      <description>The appellant successfully appealed against an order demanding duty, interest, and penalty for excess cenvat credit availed due to discounts provided by the supplier, M/s. Tata Steels Ltd. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that since the supplier did not claim a refund of the excess duty paid, the appellant rightfully availed the cenvat credit. As a result, the impugned order demanding duty, interest, and penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266936</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>