<?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 1315 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338235</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal directing the appellant to deposit 8% of the goods&#039; value sold to the Indian Navy to resolve the dispute over MODVAT credit disentitlement for goods sold under exemption. The lack of evidence supporting the exclusive use of input for exempted goods production and disagreement over the deposit amount led to the rejection of the settlement petition, allowing the Tribunal to review the case afresh. No penalty was imposed, and the appeal was granted concerning the directed deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:40:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=456689" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1315 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338235</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal directing the appellant to deposit 8% of the goods&#039; value sold to the Indian Navy to resolve the dispute over MODVAT credit disentitlement for goods sold under exemption. The lack of evidence supporting the exclusive use of input for exempted goods production and disagreement over the deposit amount led to the rejection of the settlement petition, allowing the Tribunal to review the case afresh. No penalty was imposed, and the appeal was granted concerning the directed deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>