<?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 1014 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392570</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not apply to the leftover packing material used by the appellant, as it does not qualify as manufactured goods. Consequently, the demand for recovery of excise duty and interest on the packing material was deemed unsustainable under Rule 6. The Tribunal upheld a partial demand for recovery related to common input services, while setting aside the majority of the demand on the packing material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2020 08:57:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1014 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392570</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not apply to the leftover packing material used by the appellant, as it does not qualify as manufactured goods. Consequently, the demand for recovery of excise duty and interest on the packing material was deemed unsustainable under Rule 6. The Tribunal upheld a partial demand for recovery related to common input services, while setting aside the majority of the demand on the packing material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>