<?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>2002 (3) TMI 406 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101772</link>
    <description>Credit on inputs procured from a 100% EOU was analysed under the applicable Cenvat/Modvat notification, with the discussion focusing on whether admissible credit was confined to the additional duty of customs payable on like imported goods. The order treated the notification as materially similar to the one considered by the Larger Bench, relied on departmental circulars and prior Tribunal rulings in the assessee&#039;s own case, and noted that new grounds could not be raised at the appeal stage if absent from the show cause notice. It also stated that subordinate authorities were bound by appellate and Tribunal precedent. On that basis, the drop-order was upheld and the departmental appeal rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138821" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 406 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101772</link>
      <description>Credit on inputs procured from a 100% EOU was analysed under the applicable Cenvat/Modvat notification, with the discussion focusing on whether admissible credit was confined to the additional duty of customs payable on like imported goods. The order treated the notification as materially similar to the one considered by the Larger Bench, relied on departmental circulars and prior Tribunal rulings in the assessee&#039;s own case, and noted that new grounds could not be raised at the appeal stage if absent from the show cause notice. It also stated that subordinate authorities were bound by appellate and Tribunal precedent. On that basis, the drop-order was upheld and the departmental appeal rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>