<?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 (11) TMI 359 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267550</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper verification of facts. The judgment highlighted that Cenvat credit for outward transportation should be allowed for exports, re-credit of Cenvat without a refund claim is valid, and credit for invisible loss during job work process is admissible unless there is diversion of goods. The lower authorities were directed to re-examine the admissibility of the credit thoroughly, considering all relevant aspects.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2015 14:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404716" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 359 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267550</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper verification of facts. The judgment highlighted that Cenvat credit for outward transportation should be allowed for exports, re-credit of Cenvat without a refund claim is valid, and credit for invisible loss during job work process is admissible unless there is diversion of goods. The lower authorities were directed to re-examine the admissibility of the credit thoroughly, considering all relevant aspects.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267550</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>