<?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 936 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345824</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing Air Pollution Control Systems and Industrial Ventilation Systems, setting aside an Order-in-Original demanding cenvat credit on imported capital goods cleared as used machinery without payment of credit. The Tribunal held that the demand was time-barred as the show-cause notice was issued after the limitation period, citing conflicting judgments and compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The appellant&#039;s compliance and notification to the Department regarding the clearance of used machinery were considered, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=483303" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 936 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345824</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing Air Pollution Control Systems and Industrial Ventilation Systems, setting aside an Order-in-Original demanding cenvat credit on imported capital goods cleared as used machinery without payment of credit. The Tribunal held that the demand was time-barred as the show-cause notice was issued after the limitation period, citing conflicting judgments and compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The appellant&#039;s compliance and notification to the Department regarding the clearance of used machinery were considered, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>