<?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 977 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339277</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, manufacturers of sugar and molasses, in a dispute over the classification of goods for Cenvat Credit under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal held that once the classification of goods is accepted by the Central Excise Officer, it cannot be changed based on actual usage at the recipient&#039;s end. As such, the department&#039;s attempt to reclassify the goods was deemed unjustified, leading to the setting aside of the Orders-in-Appeal and allowing both appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:26:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 977 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339277</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, manufacturers of sugar and molasses, in a dispute over the classification of goods for Cenvat Credit under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal held that once the classification of goods is accepted by the Central Excise Officer, it cannot be changed based on actual usage at the recipient&#039;s end. As such, the department&#039;s attempt to reclassify the goods was deemed unjustified, leading to the setting aside of the Orders-in-Appeal and allowing both appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>