<?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 (8) TMI 892 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365420</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming that the assessee was entitled to claim CENVAT credit under the more beneficial Notification No.02/2008-CE. The Court held that the Revenue&#039;s attempt to compel the assessee to avail Notification No.05/2006-CE was unjustified. The Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee was upheld, with the High Court finding no malafide on the part of the assessee in claiming CENVAT credit after the anomaly was corrected by the Central Government.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2018 13:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 892 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365420</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming that the assessee was entitled to claim CENVAT credit under the more beneficial Notification No.02/2008-CE. The Court held that the Revenue&#039;s attempt to compel the assessee to avail Notification No.05/2006-CE was unjustified. The Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee was upheld, with the High Court finding no malafide on the part of the assessee in claiming CENVAT credit after the anomaly was corrected by the Central Government.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>