<?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 (3) TMI 312 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393168</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding the CENVAT Credit reversal. The Court emphasized the distinction between the clauses of Rule 11(3) and clarified that the lapsing provision does not apply to Clause (i). The judgment reaffirmed the rules governing CENVAT Credit and the implications of availing exemptions under relevant notifications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2020 08:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 312 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393168</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding the CENVAT Credit reversal. The Court emphasized the distinction between the clauses of Rule 11(3) and clarified that the lapsing provision does not apply to Clause (i). The judgment reaffirmed the rules governing CENVAT Credit and the implications of availing exemptions under relevant notifications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>