<?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 1113 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331729</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing Cenvat credit on returned duty paid goods by interpreting Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The judgment emphasized the importance of duty payment status over the issuer of the invoice and the lack of a specified procedure for availing credit on returned goods. The decision highlighted the need for proper duty payment during re-issuance of reprocessed goods, ultimately allowing the appeal and modifying the initial order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1113 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331729</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing Cenvat credit on returned duty paid goods by interpreting Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The judgment emphasized the importance of duty payment status over the issuer of the invoice and the lack of a specified procedure for availing credit on returned goods. The decision highlighted the need for proper duty payment during re-issuance of reprocessed goods, ultimately allowing the appeal and modifying the initial order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>