<?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>2005 (4) TMI 453 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116217</link>
    <description>Where a deemed credit scheme is continued under a subsequent notification for the same commodity, previously earned but unutilised credit remains available unless the later notification expressly provides for lapse. Rescission of the earlier notification alone does not extinguish accrued credit. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty were held unsustainable, and the assessee obtained consequential relief with the impugned orders set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:55:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 453 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116217</link>
      <description>Where a deemed credit scheme is continued under a subsequent notification for the same commodity, previously earned but unutilised credit remains available unless the later notification expressly provides for lapse. Rescission of the earlier notification alone does not extinguish accrued credit. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty were held unsustainable, and the assessee obtained consequential relief with the impugned orders set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>