<?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 (9) TMI 141 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331880</link>
    <description>Omission to decide a specifically raised and argued ground may constitute a mistake apparent from the record, permitting rectification to add findings without reviewing the merits. Cenvat credit on towers and prefabricated shelters cannot be denied at the recipient end where the supplier treated the goods as excisable, paid duty on clearance, and the assessment was neither revised nor refunded. Recipient-end authorities cannot collaterally challenge the supplier-end duty assessment when duty-paying documents evidence duty actually collected. The rectification application was maintainable, and the recipient was entitled to credit on those facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 141 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331880</link>
      <description>Omission to decide a specifically raised and argued ground may constitute a mistake apparent from the record, permitting rectification to add findings without reviewing the merits. Cenvat credit on towers and prefabricated shelters cannot be denied at the recipient end where the supplier treated the goods as excisable, paid duty on clearance, and the assessment was neither revised nor refunded. Recipient-end authorities cannot collaterally challenge the supplier-end duty assessment when duty-paying documents evidence duty actually collected. The rectification application was maintainable, and the recipient was entitled to credit on those facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331880</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>