<?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>2010 (1) TMI 558 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=79039</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on capital goods used exclusively for exempted goods was barred under Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, because eligibility is tested when the capital goods are received and by reference to the dutiability of the final product at that time. The plea that the goods would later be used for dutiable manufacture after the exemption period did not establish a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. The record also indicated incomplete disclosure to the Department during the relevant period, supporting extended limitation, and no material was produced to show financial hardship. Stay of recovery for duty and interest was refused, while recovery of penalty was stayed pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:23:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 558 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=79039</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on capital goods used exclusively for exempted goods was barred under Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, because eligibility is tested when the capital goods are received and by reference to the dutiability of the final product at that time. The plea that the goods would later be used for dutiable manufacture after the exemption period did not establish a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. The record also indicated incomplete disclosure to the Department during the relevant period, supporting extended limitation, and no material was produced to show financial hardship. Stay of recovery for duty and interest was refused, while recovery of penalty was stayed pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=79039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>