<?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 (9) TMI 503 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398384</link>
    <description>The Tribunal addressed appeals regarding breaches of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, totaling Rs. 13,48,01,326. The appellant&#039;s argument for plants supplying defense organizations to be treated as separate factories was rejected. Issues included additional liability of Rs. 1,56,19,370 due to non-inclusion of free inputs value, retrospective application of rule amendments, and exclusion of certain clearances from exempted goods. The Tribunal emphasized separate accounts maintenance, criticized the authority&#039;s failure to apply rule changes retrospectively, and stressed adherence to rule provisions. Orders were set aside for reevaluation, allowing the appellant to present revised computations and ensuring procedural compliance and fairness in tax matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:59:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 503 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398384</link>
      <description>The Tribunal addressed appeals regarding breaches of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, totaling Rs. 13,48,01,326. The appellant&#039;s argument for plants supplying defense organizations to be treated as separate factories was rejected. Issues included additional liability of Rs. 1,56,19,370 due to non-inclusion of free inputs value, retrospective application of rule amendments, and exclusion of certain clearances from exempted goods. The Tribunal emphasized separate accounts maintenance, criticized the authority&#039;s failure to apply rule changes retrospectively, and stressed adherence to rule provisions. Orders were set aside for reevaluation, allowing the appellant to present revised computations and ensuring procedural compliance and fairness in tax matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398384</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>