<?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 (2) TMI 305 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338605</link>
    <description>Issuing invoices without payment of duty and without clearance of goods was treated as a contravention of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Tribunal noted that Rule 13 authorised penalty for such contravention in respect of inputs, up to the duty amount. On the admitted facts, the appellants had issued invoices without paying duty, and the relied-on case law was found not to address Rule 13. Penalty under the impugned order was therefore upheld and no interference was called for.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:21:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 305 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338605</link>
      <description>Issuing invoices without payment of duty and without clearance of goods was treated as a contravention of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Tribunal noted that Rule 13 authorised penalty for such contravention in respect of inputs, up to the duty amount. On the admitted facts, the appellants had issued invoices without paying duty, and the relied-on case law was found not to address Rule 13. Penalty under the impugned order was therefore upheld and no interference was called for.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>