<?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 (7) TMI 193 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345081</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for reversal of cenvat credit on written off inputs. The issue of demand raised on physical verification difference in books of accounts was remanded for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority, with instructions for a denovo adjudication order within two months. The appellant&#039;s submissions regarding the physical verification difference were to be taken into account in the reconsideration process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 09:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=479904" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 193 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345081</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for reversal of cenvat credit on written off inputs. The issue of demand raised on physical verification difference in books of accounts was remanded for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority, with instructions for a denovo adjudication order within two months. The appellant&#039;s submissions regarding the physical verification difference were to be taken into account in the reconsideration process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>