<?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>2014 (4) TMI 1168 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190724</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was held inadmissible where the supporting invoices were issued by a third stage dealer, because Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 permitted credit only on invoices issued by a first stage or second stage dealer. As the supplier in the chain was not an authorised dealer stage, the documents could not validly support availment of credit. The consequent demand, interest and penalty were therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:15:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 1168 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190724</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was held inadmissible where the supporting invoices were issued by a third stage dealer, because Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 permitted credit only on invoices issued by a first stage or second stage dealer. As the supplier in the chain was not an authorised dealer stage, the documents could not validly support availment of credit. The consequent demand, interest and penalty were therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>