<?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 1132 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343394</link>
    <description>Duplicative penalty proceedings for the same wrongful availment of Cenvat credit cannot be sustained where the identical credit amount had already been included in earlier adjudication and disallowance. Once the very same credit had been subjected to prior proceedings, a second penalty on that amount was treated as unjustified. The penalty was therefore dropped, the impugned order was modified, and consequential relief followed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 May 2017 12:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=469621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1132 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343394</link>
      <description>Duplicative penalty proceedings for the same wrongful availment of Cenvat credit cannot be sustained where the identical credit amount had already been included in earlier adjudication and disallowance. Once the very same credit had been subjected to prior proceedings, a second penalty on that amount was treated as unjustified. The penalty was therefore dropped, the impugned order was modified, and consequential relief followed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>