<?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 (4) TMI 234 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326120</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal and affirming the decision in favor of the respondent. The issue centered on the respondent availing Cenvat Credit based on a photocopy of the Original Bill of Entry, which was deemed invalid by the audit party. However, the respondent later produced valid invoices issued by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., leading the tribunal to conclude that the initial error in mentioning document details should not result in credit denial when valid invoices were available. The tribunal emphasized that the respondent&#039;s case was supported by relevant judgments, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422884" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 234 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326120</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal and affirming the decision in favor of the respondent. The issue centered on the respondent availing Cenvat Credit based on a photocopy of the Original Bill of Entry, which was deemed invalid by the audit party. However, the respondent later produced valid invoices issued by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., leading the tribunal to conclude that the initial error in mentioning document details should not result in credit denial when valid invoices were available. The tribunal emphasized that the respondent&#039;s case was supported by relevant judgments, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326120</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>