<?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 (3) TMI 500 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339997</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing Cenvat credit for specific input amounts used in manufacturing finished goods and goods in process. However, credit for inputs in stock as of the exemption date was deemed inadmissible. The penalty imposed by the Commissioner(Appeals) was set aside, but the appellant was liable for interest on the inadmissible credit. The tribunal partially allowed the appeal by modifying the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 500 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339997</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing Cenvat credit for specific input amounts used in manufacturing finished goods and goods in process. However, credit for inputs in stock as of the exemption date was deemed inadmissible. The penalty imposed by the Commissioner(Appeals) was set aside, but the appellant was liable for interest on the inadmissible credit. The tribunal partially allowed the appeal by modifying the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339997</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>