<?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 (5) TMI 502 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342764</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner&#039;s decision, allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the vendors did not suppress facts, as evidenced by judgments from High Courts and Tribunals indicating no mala fide intention. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the vendors&#039; actions did not establish suppression, leading to the reversal of the demand confirmation and penalty imposition under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 May 2017 07:12:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 502 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342764</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner&#039;s decision, allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the vendors did not suppress facts, as evidenced by judgments from High Courts and Tribunals indicating no mala fide intention. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the vendors&#039; actions did not establish suppression, leading to the reversal of the demand confirmation and penalty imposition under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>