<?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 (9) TMI 1375 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348618</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the demand and penalty while directing the payment of interest. The judgment reinforced that reversed credit is equivalent to not taken credit, validating reliance on judicial precedents. The appellant&#039;s arguments based on Board Circulars were dismissed, affirming judicial interpretation precedence over administrative instructions. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2018 11:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=490610" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1375 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348618</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the demand and penalty while directing the payment of interest. The judgment reinforced that reversed credit is equivalent to not taken credit, validating reliance on judicial precedents. The appellant&#039;s arguments based on Board Circulars were dismissed, affirming judicial interpretation precedence over administrative instructions. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348618</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>