<?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 (3) TMI 109 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272297</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant&#039;s non-compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, specifically Rule 3(5), regarding the timely return of capital goods and seeking permission for extensions. The lack of documentation, repeated adjournments, and failure to provide necessary details led to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:04:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=418934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 109 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272297</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant&#039;s non-compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, specifically Rule 3(5), regarding the timely return of capital goods and seeking permission for extensions. The lack of documentation, repeated adjournments, and failure to provide necessary details led to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>