<?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>2004 (5) TMI 194 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53228</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against allowing credit for a Bill of Entry taken after six months. The appellant&#039;s proactive steps to seek permission, coupled with delayed response from the Revenue and eventual credit availed upon locating the necessary document, justified the extension. Legal precedents and circulars supported this decision, emphasizing the validity of the credit taken beyond the stipulated period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:00:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91705" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 194 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53228</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against allowing credit for a Bill of Entry taken after six months. The appellant&#039;s proactive steps to seek permission, coupled with delayed response from the Revenue and eventual credit availed upon locating the necessary document, justified the extension. Legal precedents and circulars supported this decision, emphasizing the validity of the credit taken beyond the stipulated period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>