<?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 1181 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394037</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the penalty imposition on a manufacturer for availing Cenvat credit twice on the same invoice and not fully reversing credit on capital goods cleared after use. The appellant&#039;s actions were deemed to demonstrate intent to evade payment, leading to the confirmation of penalties under Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004. The tribunal found the violations of the Act and Rules by the appellant undisputed, justifying the penalty imposition upheld by the lower authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=608610" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 1181 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394037</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the penalty imposition on a manufacturer for availing Cenvat credit twice on the same invoice and not fully reversing credit on capital goods cleared after use. The appellant&#039;s actions were deemed to demonstrate intent to evade payment, leading to the confirmation of penalties under Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004. The tribunal found the violations of the Act and Rules by the appellant undisputed, justifying the penalty imposition upheld by the lower authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>