<?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>2019 (4) TMI 473 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378029</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the amendment restricting cenvat credit had prospective effect only. The appellant&#039;s right to avail credit on invoices received before the effective date of the amendment was deemed vested and protected. The judgment emphasized the principle that existing rights cannot be curtailed by subsequent amendments unless expressly provided. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential benefits to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2019 01:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=566008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 473 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378029</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the amendment restricting cenvat credit had prospective effect only. The appellant&#039;s right to avail credit on invoices received before the effective date of the amendment was deemed vested and protected. The judgment emphasized the principle that existing rights cannot be curtailed by subsequent amendments unless expressly provided. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential benefits to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>