<?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 905 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378461</link>
    <description>The appellant, engaged in auto parts manufacturing, contested a show cause notice disallowing cenvat credit and proposing penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, reducing penalties and allowing cenvat credit of Rs. 15,83,542/-. The Tribunal remanded the case for producing evidence on disallowed credit for lack of invoices, addressed calculation errors, and allowed credit for electrical fixtures. The Tribunal found the notice invalid for amounts deposited before issuance, dropping penalties and directing the appellant to appear before the adjudicating authority. The appeal was partially allowed based on the issues involved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2019 15:47:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=567108" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 905 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378461</link>
      <description>The appellant, engaged in auto parts manufacturing, contested a show cause notice disallowing cenvat credit and proposing penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, reducing penalties and allowing cenvat credit of Rs. 15,83,542/-. The Tribunal remanded the case for producing evidence on disallowed credit for lack of invoices, addressed calculation errors, and allowed credit for electrical fixtures. The Tribunal found the notice invalid for amounts deposited before issuance, dropping penalties and directing the appellant to appear before the adjudicating authority. The appeal was partially allowed based on the issues involved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>