<?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 1404 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360840</link>
    <description>Reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to common input services before issuance of the show-cause notice was treated as equivalent to non-availment of that credit. On that basis, the percentage-based liability under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was held not to arise merely because separate accounts had not been maintained. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the associated interest and penalty also fell with the principal demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2018 06:59:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1404 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360840</link>
      <description>Reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to common input services before issuance of the show-cause notice was treated as equivalent to non-availment of that credit. On that basis, the percentage-based liability under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was held not to arise merely because separate accounts had not been maintained. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the associated interest and penalty also fell with the principal demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>