<?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 (5) TMI 194 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359630</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the discharge of 5%/6% of the value of Oxygen Gas cleared for medical purposes. The tribunal found that since the appellant did not utilize the credit on the input service for supplying Oxygen Gas for medical purposes, they were not obligated to pay the said percentage under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant&#039;s evidence, including certificates and communication from the buyer, supported their position, and as the Revenue did not provide contradictory evidence, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authority&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 May 2018 07:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 194 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359630</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the discharge of 5%/6% of the value of Oxygen Gas cleared for medical purposes. The tribunal found that since the appellant did not utilize the credit on the input service for supplying Oxygen Gas for medical purposes, they were not obligated to pay the said percentage under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant&#039;s evidence, including certificates and communication from the buyer, supported their position, and as the Revenue did not provide contradictory evidence, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authority&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>