<?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>2018 (4) TMI 896 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358785</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case involving the availment of Cenvat credit on exempted products. It held that the appellant could claim Cenvat credit for materials used in manufacturing exempted products as they were clearing products by paying 8% duty under a different provision. The Tribunal also allowed the appellant the benefit of Cenvat credit on input and input services, structural items, and excess Cenvat credit on capital goods, setting aside the demands related to these issues. Additionally, it found that the extended limitation period for raising demands was not justified due to the absence of malafide intent, providing relief to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2020 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 896 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358785</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case involving the availment of Cenvat credit on exempted products. It held that the appellant could claim Cenvat credit for materials used in manufacturing exempted products as they were clearing products by paying 8% duty under a different provision. The Tribunal also allowed the appellant the benefit of Cenvat credit on input and input services, structural items, and excess Cenvat credit on capital goods, setting aside the demands related to these issues. Additionally, it found that the extended limitation period for raising demands was not justified due to the absence of malafide intent, providing relief to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>