<?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>2024 (1) TMI 959 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448560</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on iron and steel items used in structures embedded to earth was treated as settled in favour of the assessee, as the later legal position recognised credit where the relevant amendment operated prospectively; the merits challenge therefore failed. The revenue also failed to show sufficient cause for an extraordinary delay in refiling the appeal, because the papers were repeatedly returned for defects and were refiled only after long gaps without a satisfactory explanation, including for the period before the COVID-19 disruption; condonation was refused. The impugned order in favour of the assessee was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Jan 2024 21:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=741024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 959 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448560</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on iron and steel items used in structures embedded to earth was treated as settled in favour of the assessee, as the later legal position recognised credit where the relevant amendment operated prospectively; the merits challenge therefore failed. The revenue also failed to show sufficient cause for an extraordinary delay in refiling the appeal, because the papers were repeatedly returned for defects and were refiled only after long gaps without a satisfactory explanation, including for the period before the COVID-19 disruption; condonation was refused. The impugned order in favour of the assessee was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448560</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>