<?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>2009 (1) TMI 226 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34408</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that the extended period could not be applied in the demand case. It was found that the appellants did not gain any extra benefit from the incorrect procedure followed, as they could have obtained more credit by following the correct process. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of adhering to proper procedures for credit availing and noted the department&#039;s awareness of the process as a key factor in the decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 226 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34408</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that the extended period could not be applied in the demand case. It was found that the appellants did not gain any extra benefit from the incorrect procedure followed, as they could have obtained more credit by following the correct process. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of adhering to proper procedures for credit availing and noted the department&#039;s awareness of the process as a key factor in the decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>