<?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>2016 (6) TMI 1512 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470010</link>
    <description>Interest liability on wrongly availed but later reversed Cenvat credit before the 01.04.2012 amendment is identified as the central issue under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The text also raises whether absence of intent to evade duty and regular filing of returns negate suppression and penalty, and whether penalty requires fresh consideration in light of a cited Supreme Court decision. No legal issue was finally decided. The matter was admitted on the stated substantial questions of law and directed for further hearing, so the text records only the questions framed for adjudication and not any concluded legal ruling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 14:23:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1512 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470010</link>
      <description>Interest liability on wrongly availed but later reversed Cenvat credit before the 01.04.2012 amendment is identified as the central issue under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The text also raises whether absence of intent to evade duty and regular filing of returns negate suppression and penalty, and whether penalty requires fresh consideration in light of a cited Supreme Court decision. No legal issue was finally decided. The matter was admitted on the stated substantial questions of law and directed for further hearing, so the text records only the questions framed for adjudication and not any concluded legal ruling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>