<?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>2020 (2) TMI 181 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391737</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order, emphasizing that the denial of Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalties were not in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. The denial of Cenvat Credit based on lack of goods movement was deemed inconsistent with the rules for deemed textile manufacturers, highlighting the importance of the first dealer&#039;s duty liability and preventing double taxation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2020 08:11:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=602781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 181 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391737</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order, emphasizing that the denial of Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalties were not in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. The denial of Cenvat Credit based on lack of goods movement was deemed inconsistent with the rules for deemed textile manufacturers, highlighting the importance of the first dealer&#039;s duty liability and preventing double taxation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>