<?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>2007 (1) TMI 62 -  CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2180</link>
    <description>The appellants&#039; appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal emphasized that credit should not be denied on procedural/technical grounds when there is no dispute over the duty paid nature of goods and their receipt by the appellants. Following the principles outlined in the Kamakhya Steel case, the appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law, mirroring a previous Tribunal decision on a similar issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41552" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 62 -  CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2180</link>
      <description>The appellants&#039; appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal emphasized that credit should not be denied on procedural/technical grounds when there is no dispute over the duty paid nature of goods and their receipt by the appellants. Following the principles outlined in the Kamakhya Steel case, the appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law, mirroring a previous Tribunal decision on a similar issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>