<?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 (8) TMI 485 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104965</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on inputs processed through job workers was held to depend on compliance with the mandatory condition that the job workers avail Notification No. 214/86-C.E.; where that pre-condition is not met, the credit benefit cannot be extended. The job workers here operated under a complete exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., so the essential requirement was not satisfied. The Board instruction relied on by the appellants did not override this condition, and the cited Supreme Court authorities supported the same approach. The appellants therefore failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit, and the disputed amount was directed to be deposited.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:45:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142004" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 485 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104965</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on inputs processed through job workers was held to depend on compliance with the mandatory condition that the job workers avail Notification No. 214/86-C.E.; where that pre-condition is not met, the credit benefit cannot be extended. The job workers here operated under a complete exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., so the essential requirement was not satisfied. The Board instruction relied on by the appellants did not override this condition, and the cited Supreme Court authorities supported the same approach. The appellants therefore failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit, and the disputed amount was directed to be deposited.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>