<?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>2008 (10) TMI 22 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31348</link>
    <description>TR-6 challan was treated as a valid duty-paying document for Cenvat credit where the relevant payment was reflected in the challan and no alternative prescribed document or infirmity was shown. Notification No. 28/2005-CE brought TR-6 challan within the list of valid documents from 16.06.2005, and earlier decisions had also allowed credit on similar challans. On that basis, denial of Cenvat credit was held unsustainable, and the order disallowing credit was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 22 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31348</link>
      <description>TR-6 challan was treated as a valid duty-paying document for Cenvat credit where the relevant payment was reflected in the challan and no alternative prescribed document or infirmity was shown. Notification No. 28/2005-CE brought TR-6 challan within the list of valid documents from 16.06.2005, and earlier decisions had also allowed credit on similar challans. On that basis, denial of Cenvat credit was held unsustainable, and the order disallowing credit was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>