<?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>2004 (2) TMI 630 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114266</link>
    <description>Deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) was unavailable where processed fabrics received from job workers were used again as input for further processing before final clearance. Explanation II was applied to exclude processed fabrics that themselves become inputs for further processing, so the statutory condition for availing deemed credit was not met. Denial of the credit was therefore lawful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 12:41:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 630 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114266</link>
      <description>Deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) was unavailable where processed fabrics received from job workers were used again as input for further processing before final clearance. Explanation II was applied to exclude processed fabrics that themselves become inputs for further processing, so the statutory condition for availing deemed credit was not met. Denial of the credit was therefore lawful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>