<?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 1019 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358908</link>
    <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal against setting aside demands for CENVAT Credit on transportation of finished goods was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied on its previous ruling in favor of the assessee in a similar case, allowing them to avail CENVAT Credit on service tax paid for outward transportation services. The presiding Member concluded that the Revenue&#039;s appeal lacked merit, and even if the Revenue had filed an appeal, the decision&#039;s ratio would apply, leading to the rejection of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2018 15:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1019 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358908</link>
      <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal against setting aside demands for CENVAT Credit on transportation of finished goods was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied on its previous ruling in favor of the assessee in a similar case, allowing them to avail CENVAT Credit on service tax paid for outward transportation services. The presiding Member concluded that the Revenue&#039;s appeal lacked merit, and even if the Revenue had filed an appeal, the decision&#039;s ratio would apply, leading to the rejection of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358908</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>