<?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 (6) TMI 903 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381826</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules overrides Rules 6(1) and 6(2), with the restriction on credit utilization, not availment. It determined no provision for credit lapsing and that the extended limitation period was inapplicable due to prior knowledge by the department. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2019 18:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 903 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381826</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules overrides Rules 6(1) and 6(2), with the restriction on credit utilization, not availment. It determined no provision for credit lapsing and that the extended limitation period was inapplicable due to prior knowledge by the department. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>