<?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>2005 (2) TMI 839 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178316</link>
    <description>Excise authorities assessing the recipient of inputs cannot reopen the classification adopted by the competent officer having jurisdiction over the supplier for the purpose of denying Modvat/Cenvat credit. The supplier&#039;s classification was treated as binding on the recipient&#039;s credit entitlement, so a reclassification at the recipient&#039;s end could not sustain disallowance of credit. On that basis, the disallowance and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:23:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 839 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178316</link>
      <description>Excise authorities assessing the recipient of inputs cannot reopen the classification adopted by the competent officer having jurisdiction over the supplier for the purpose of denying Modvat/Cenvat credit. The supplier&#039;s classification was treated as binding on the recipient&#039;s credit entitlement, so a reclassification at the recipient&#039;s end could not sustain disallowance of credit. On that basis, the disallowance and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>