<?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 (12) TMI 114 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4110</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of credit for holograms and imposition of penalties, finding that the holograms were not used by the appellant in manufacturing the final product but were sent to another manufacturer without reversing the credit. Despite the appellant&#039;s argument that the holograms were used in manufacturing packing material for the final product, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the appellant did not use the holograms as claimed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 114 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4110</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of credit for holograms and imposition of penalties, finding that the holograms were not used by the appellant in manufacturing the final product but were sent to another manufacturer without reversing the credit. Despite the appellant&#039;s argument that the holograms were used in manufacturing packing material for the final product, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the appellant did not use the holograms as claimed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>