<?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 (7) TMI 591 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329993</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by modifying the order to grant cenvat credit for specific amounts in the respective years based on the correct interpretation of Rule 4(4) and the depreciation claimed. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the application of the rule and relevant legal precedents to determine cenvat credit eligibility in the given circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Nov 2016 11:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 591 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329993</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by modifying the order to grant cenvat credit for specific amounts in the respective years based on the correct interpretation of Rule 4(4) and the depreciation claimed. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the application of the rule and relevant legal precedents to determine cenvat credit eligibility in the given circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>