<?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>1988 (7) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73788</link>
    <description>Proforma credit under Rule 56A was held inadmissible for inputs used in manufacturing refrigerators and air-conditioners cleared without duty to a Free Trade Zone, because the first proviso to Rule 56A(2) bars credit where the finished goods are wholly exempt or chargeable to nil duty, and deemed-export treatment could not be imported from the Import and Export Policy without a specific rule or notification. At the same time, demands raised beyond six months were barred under Rule 56A(5)(i) where the Department failed to rebut the finding that the credit availment was within its knowledge. The demand was therefore confined to the non-time-barred period and required recalculation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:58:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (7) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73788</link>
      <description>Proforma credit under Rule 56A was held inadmissible for inputs used in manufacturing refrigerators and air-conditioners cleared without duty to a Free Trade Zone, because the first proviso to Rule 56A(2) bars credit where the finished goods are wholly exempt or chargeable to nil duty, and deemed-export treatment could not be imported from the Import and Export Policy without a specific rule or notification. At the same time, demands raised beyond six months were barred under Rule 56A(5)(i) where the Department failed to rebut the finding that the credit availment was within its knowledge. The demand was therefore confined to the non-time-barred period and required recalculation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>