<?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>2011 (6) TMI 972 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278296</link>
    <description>The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the Tribunal&#039;s decision granting the assessee the benefit of notifications for Cenvat credit. The Court held that the issue of entitlement to the notification&#039;s benefit falls under the jurisdiction of the Apex Court, not the High Court, citing Rule 6(3)(vi) of the Cenvat Credit Rules of 2004. The appeal was rejected, with the Revenue advised to seek recourse with the Apex Court under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 12:58:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=554483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 972 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278296</link>
      <description>The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the Tribunal&#039;s decision granting the assessee the benefit of notifications for Cenvat credit. The Court held that the issue of entitlement to the notification&#039;s benefit falls under the jurisdiction of the Apex Court, not the High Court, citing Rule 6(3)(vi) of the Cenvat Credit Rules of 2004. The appeal was rejected, with the Revenue advised to seek recourse with the Apex Court under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>