<?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 (8) TMI 540 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331156</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision that simultaneous claiming of CENVAT credit and depreciation on the same amount was impermissible under Rule 4(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It found the appellant had suppressed facts, leading to the correct demand within the extended period. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the inadmissibility of CENVAT credit and depreciation and the timely raised demand due to suppression of facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2016 18:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 540 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331156</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision that simultaneous claiming of CENVAT credit and depreciation on the same amount was impermissible under Rule 4(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It found the appellant had suppressed facts, leading to the correct demand within the extended period. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the inadmissibility of CENVAT credit and depreciation and the timely raised demand due to suppression of facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331156</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>