<?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>2016 (2) TMI 638 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271933</link>
    <description>A courier bill of entry was treated as a valid document for availing CENVAT credit under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, where the imported inputs were received and used in manufacture. Credit could not be denied merely because the bill of entry was issued in the name of the courier company. Following the cited decisions, the denial of credit was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417157" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 638 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271933</link>
      <description>A courier bill of entry was treated as a valid document for availing CENVAT credit under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, where the imported inputs were received and used in manufacture. Credit could not be denied merely because the bill of entry was issued in the name of the courier company. Following the cited decisions, the denial of credit was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271933</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>