<?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>2022 (11) TMI 288 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429864</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that SAIL-RSP and SAIL-RFP are not separate units but part of the same legal entity. It allowed the availment of CENVAT Credit by RSP for capital goods used in RFP, stating the extended period of limitation was not invokable due to the department&#039;s prior knowledge. Rule 8 of the CENVAT Credit Rules was deemed inapplicable, and the impugned orders were set aside, with the appeal allowed for the Appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2022 09:11:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695050" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 288 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429864</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that SAIL-RSP and SAIL-RFP are not separate units but part of the same legal entity. It allowed the availment of CENVAT Credit by RSP for capital goods used in RFP, stating the extended period of limitation was not invokable due to the department&#039;s prior knowledge. Rule 8 of the CENVAT Credit Rules was deemed inapplicable, and the impugned orders were set aside, with the appeal allowed for the Appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>