<?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 (12) TMI 278 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389395</link>
    <description>The tribunal resolved the issue of simultaneous availment of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE and CENVAT Credit by referring the matter to a third member due to differing opinions between judicial and technical members. The third member sided with the Member (Judicial), allowing the appellant to avail the SSI exemption while also claiming CENVAT Credit for inputs in branded goods. This decision was influenced by a holistic interpretation of the notification and the Supreme Court&#039;s precedent in Nebulae Health Care Ltd, which distinguished from Ramesh Food Products. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2024 13:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=596522" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 278 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389395</link>
      <description>The tribunal resolved the issue of simultaneous availment of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE and CENVAT Credit by referring the matter to a third member due to differing opinions between judicial and technical members. The third member sided with the Member (Judicial), allowing the appellant to avail the SSI exemption while also claiming CENVAT Credit for inputs in branded goods. This decision was influenced by a holistic interpretation of the notification and the Supreme Court&#039;s precedent in Nebulae Health Care Ltd, which distinguished from Ramesh Food Products. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>