<?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 (12) TMI 735 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269431</link>
    <description>The Member (Judicial) set aside the impugned order denying cenvat credit on a xerox copy of the bill of entry, ruling in favor of the appellant. The judgment emphasized that technical violations should not hinder substantial benefits, especially when the original bill of entry was withheld by Customs authorities despite the appellant&#039;s efforts. The decision granted the appellant the cenvat credit, highlighting their lack of fault in producing the original bill of entry due to Customs authorities&#039; refusal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:26:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 735 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269431</link>
      <description>The Member (Judicial) set aside the impugned order denying cenvat credit on a xerox copy of the bill of entry, ruling in favor of the appellant. The judgment emphasized that technical violations should not hinder substantial benefits, especially when the original bill of entry was withheld by Customs authorities despite the appellant&#039;s efforts. The decision granted the appellant the cenvat credit, highlighting their lack of fault in producing the original bill of entry due to Customs authorities&#039; refusal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>