<?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 (8) TMI 443 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76108</link>
    <description>Notification No. 45/2003-C.E. denied exemption only where Cenvat credit on inputs used for ceramic tiles had been taken under the relevant credit rules. Where the assessee had taken credit but later reversed the entire amount with interest and stated that no re-credit would be claimed, the reversal was treated as if no credit had been taken. On that basis, the notification condition was not regarded as breached, and denial of the benefit was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114330" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 443 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76108</link>
      <description>Notification No. 45/2003-C.E. denied exemption only where Cenvat credit on inputs used for ceramic tiles had been taken under the relevant credit rules. Where the assessee had taken credit but later reversed the entire amount with interest and stated that no re-credit would be claimed, the reversal was treated as if no credit had been taken. On that basis, the notification condition was not regarded as breached, and denial of the benefit was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76108</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>