<?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 (11) TMI 507 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334489</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit could not be denied to the recipient where the supplier had paid duty and issued valid invoices, as earlier decisions supported allowance of credit in such circumstances. The objection that the supplier&#039;s process did not amount to manufacture was treated as insufficient to refuse credit in the recipient&#039;s hands, particularly where the transaction was considered revenue neutral. On that basis, the respondent was entitled to avail the credit and the Revenue&#039;s challenge did not succeed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 507 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334489</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit could not be denied to the recipient where the supplier had paid duty and issued valid invoices, as earlier decisions supported allowance of credit in such circumstances. The objection that the supplier&#039;s process did not amount to manufacture was treated as insufficient to refuse credit in the recipient&#039;s hands, particularly where the transaction was considered revenue neutral. On that basis, the respondent was entitled to avail the credit and the Revenue&#039;s challenge did not succeed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>