<?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 1617 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361053</link>
    <description>The appellants, as registered dealers, were found not obligated to repay Cenvat Credit passed on to purchasers. The court determined that Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002, applicable to manufacturers, did not extend to traders like the appellants. Even if repayment was required, debiting the credit in invoices rendered the demand unsustainable. Relying on legal precedents, the court set aside the orders, allowing the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 May 2018 08:31:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521845" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1617 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361053</link>
      <description>The appellants, as registered dealers, were found not obligated to repay Cenvat Credit passed on to purchasers. The court determined that Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002, applicable to manufacturers, did not extend to traders like the appellants. Even if repayment was required, debiting the credit in invoices rendered the demand unsustainable. Relying on legal precedents, the court set aside the orders, allowing the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>