<?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 (5) TMI 1122 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328141</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the decision denying Cenvat credit to the appellant for the purchase of raw material, citing misinterpretation of documents by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal noted the goods were received with endorsed invoices, a common trade practice, and that the Revenue had accepted the credit taken by the seller. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant consequential benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 09:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429759" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 1122 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328141</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the decision denying Cenvat credit to the appellant for the purchase of raw material, citing misinterpretation of documents by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal noted the goods were received with endorsed invoices, a common trade practice, and that the Revenue had accepted the credit taken by the seller. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant consequential benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>