<?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>2017 (1) TMI 532 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337452</link>
    <description>The Commissioner(Appeals) decision to set aside the demand was upheld by the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal found that the credit availed by the respondent was correct, making its utilization for duty payment legal. The demand based on nonpayment of duty due to alleged fraudulent passing of credit was deemed untenable, as the Tribunal had previously established the correctness of the credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2017 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454768" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 532 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337452</link>
      <description>The Commissioner(Appeals) decision to set aside the demand was upheld by the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal found that the credit availed by the respondent was correct, making its utilization for duty payment legal. The demand based on nonpayment of duty due to alleged fraudulent passing of credit was deemed untenable, as the Tribunal had previously established the correctness of the credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>