<?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 (7) TMI 257 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362949</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, holding that Rule 16 permits manufacturers to receive and avail credit on returned goods for subsequent clearances after repair. The Tribunal emphasized the Revenue neutral nature of Rule 16 and highlighted that the absence of specified documents under Rule 9 does not invalidate the availing of credit on returned goods. The impugned order was set aside, providing consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2018 07:52:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 257 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362949</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, holding that Rule 16 permits manufacturers to receive and avail credit on returned goods for subsequent clearances after repair. The Tribunal emphasized the Revenue neutral nature of Rule 16 and highlighted that the absence of specified documents under Rule 9 does not invalidate the availing of credit on returned goods. The impugned order was set aside, providing consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>