<?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 286 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345174</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, remanding the matter for verification of whether the goods sold were manufactured by the appellant or traded goods. The court emphasized the necessity of accurately determining the nature of goods to apply Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 correctly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=480697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 286 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345174</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, remanding the matter for verification of whether the goods sold were manufactured by the appellant or traded goods. The court emphasized the necessity of accurately determining the nature of goods to apply Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 correctly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>