<?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 (5) TMI 46 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379318</link>
    <description>Rectification jurisdiction was limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record, and the Tribunal found that the earlier order had already given reasons for denying CENVAT credit. The grievance raised did not disclose any obvious mistake requiring correction, so no rectifiable error was established and the applications were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2019 08:12:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 46 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379318</link>
      <description>Rectification jurisdiction was limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record, and the Tribunal found that the earlier order had already given reasons for denying CENVAT credit. The grievance raised did not disclose any obvious mistake requiring correction, so no rectifiable error was established and the applications were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>