<?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 (4) TMI 1029 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176755</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the interest and penalty imposed on the respondents for the reversal of cenvat credit under the DEPB scheme. The Tribunal determined that the respondents were not liable for interest on the credit already reversed, citing relevant case laws and precedents. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld, with the cross objection filed by the respondent disposed of accordingly. The decision was pronounced on 24.4.2015.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:08:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 1029 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176755</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the interest and penalty imposed on the respondents for the reversal of cenvat credit under the DEPB scheme. The Tribunal determined that the respondents were not liable for interest on the credit already reversed, citing relevant case laws and precedents. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld, with the cross objection filed by the respondent disposed of accordingly. The decision was pronounced on 24.4.2015.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>