<?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 (9) TMI 382 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116543</link>
    <description>Deemed Cenvat credit was available on inputs cleared by a manufacturer under the compounded levy scheme and received during the transitional period covered by Notification No. 29/2000-C.E. (N.T.). The notification treated duty as deemed to have been paid on specified inputs and allowed credit at the prescribed rate when the stated conditions were met. On that basis, the view that the manufacturer had not paid duty under the compounded levy scheme was found incorrect, and the credit was examined as admissible under the transitional arrangement and the earlier notification governing such inputs. Accordingly, the assessee was entitled to the credit and denial was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:54:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 382 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116543</link>
      <description>Deemed Cenvat credit was available on inputs cleared by a manufacturer under the compounded levy scheme and received during the transitional period covered by Notification No. 29/2000-C.E. (N.T.). The notification treated duty as deemed to have been paid on specified inputs and allowed credit at the prescribed rate when the stated conditions were met. On that basis, the view that the manufacturer had not paid duty under the compounded levy scheme was found incorrect, and the credit was examined as admissible under the transitional arrangement and the earlier notification governing such inputs. Accordingly, the assessee was entitled to the credit and denial was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>