<?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>2003 (5) TMI 402 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109493</link>
    <description>Inputs cleared as such after proforma credit under Rule 56A did not create duty liability where the credit account was debited on removal and the credit had not been used to pay duty on final products. Mere entry of credit, including after omission of the rule, was insufficient to establish wrongful utilisation. As no duty was recoverable in the absence of credit use for final-product duty payment, no penalty was imposable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:52:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 402 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109493</link>
      <description>Inputs cleared as such after proforma credit under Rule 56A did not create duty liability where the credit account was debited on removal and the credit had not been used to pay duty on final products. Mere entry of credit, including after omission of the rule, was insufficient to establish wrongful utilisation. As no duty was recoverable in the absence of credit use for final-product duty payment, no penalty was imposable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>