<?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 (10) TMI 1224 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350069</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order solely on the ground of limitation. The show cause notice issued beyond the normal period of limitation was deemed time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The disallowance of Cenvat Credit due to non-availability of stock was not upheld as there was no evidence of malpractices or fraudulent motives, and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:29:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 1224 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350069</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order solely on the ground of limitation. The show cause notice issued beyond the normal period of limitation was deemed time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The disallowance of Cenvat Credit due to non-availability of stock was not upheld as there was no evidence of malpractices or fraudulent motives, and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>