<?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 1406 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340903</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the denial of cenvat credit to the appellant based on supplementary invoices issued by the vendor. Finding no malafide intention or suppression of facts by the vendor, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing them to claim the cenvat credit for the additional duty paid by the vendors. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing that penalties were not warranted in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1406 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340903</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the denial of cenvat credit to the appellant based on supplementary invoices issued by the vendor. Finding no malafide intention or suppression of facts by the vendor, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing them to claim the cenvat credit for the additional duty paid by the vendors. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing that penalties were not warranted in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340903</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>