<?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 526 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338826</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the decision of the lower authorities regarding the eligibility of the appellant for Countervailing Duty (CVD) exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedents and interpretations of relevant laws to determine that the appellant met the conditions for exemption, emphasizing that the exemption did not apply to goods for which the credit of duty on inputs had been availed under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was based on the unamended proviso of the notifications and aligned with the Supreme Court&#039;s rulings, leading to the appeal being allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:03:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 526 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338826</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the decision of the lower authorities regarding the eligibility of the appellant for Countervailing Duty (CVD) exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedents and interpretations of relevant laws to determine that the appellant met the conditions for exemption, emphasizing that the exemption did not apply to goods for which the credit of duty on inputs had been availed under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was based on the unamended proviso of the notifications and aligned with the Supreme Court&#039;s rulings, leading to the appeal being allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>