<?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>Court Rules No Fraud or Misconduct in Tax Dispute; Case Involves Rule Interpretation Only.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=25557</link>
    <description>When the adjudicating authority held that it is an issue of interpretation of Rule, therefore it cannot be alleged that appellant has taken cenvat credit by way of fraud, collusion, willful mis statement, suppression of fact or contravened the provisions of Act/ Rule with an intent to evade payment of duty. - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:23:50 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:23:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=403314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Rules No Fraud or Misconduct in Tax Dispute; Case Involves Rule Interpretation Only.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=25557</link>
      <description>When the adjudicating authority held that it is an issue of interpretation of Rule, therefore it cannot be alleged that appellant has taken cenvat credit by way of fraud, collusion, willful mis statement, suppression of fact or contravened the provisions of Act/ Rule with an intent to evade payment of duty. - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:23:50 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=25557</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>