<?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 (11) TMI 1457 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351578</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal set aside the order denying cenvat credit on renting immovable property for job worker&#039;s premises for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 due to lack of substantiated evidence of the job worker&#039;s manufacturing activities for themselves during those periods. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconciling discrepancies between documents, emphasizing the importance of accurate assessment of evidence in determining cenvat credit eligibility under indirect taxation laws.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:38:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497845" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1457 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351578</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal set aside the order denying cenvat credit on renting immovable property for job worker&#039;s premises for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 due to lack of substantiated evidence of the job worker&#039;s manufacturing activities for themselves during those periods. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconciling discrepancies between documents, emphasizing the importance of accurate assessment of evidence in determining cenvat credit eligibility under indirect taxation laws.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>