<?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 (10) TMI 461 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333441</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the order disallowing Cenvat Credit, citing the petitioner&#039;s failure to appeal within the statutory limitation period. The Court emphasized that special laws like the Finance Act do not allow for condonation of delay beyond specified limits. Additionally, the Court upheld the order-in-original, finding no grounds for interference due to the petitioner&#039;s lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter within the limitation period. The Court affirmed the denial of input credit based on the petitioner&#039;s non-compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules and declaration requirements, ultimately dismissing the Writ Petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2017 12:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 461 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333441</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the order disallowing Cenvat Credit, citing the petitioner&#039;s failure to appeal within the statutory limitation period. The Court emphasized that special laws like the Finance Act do not allow for condonation of delay beyond specified limits. Additionally, the Court upheld the order-in-original, finding no grounds for interference due to the petitioner&#039;s lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter within the limitation period. The Court affirmed the denial of input credit based on the petitioner&#039;s non-compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules and declaration requirements, ultimately dismissing the Writ Petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>