<?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 (10) TMI 446 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118858</link>
    <description>For the period before 1-9-1996, Rule 57C required reversal of credit on the full quantity of common inputs used in exempted goods, and that computation included processing loss. The disputed issue was whether processing loss should be excluded from the inputs relatable to exempted production. The text states that the entire quantity consumed in manufacturing exempted goods had to be taken into account, so the credit reversal was to be computed on that basis. The contrary view of the lower appellate authority was therefore set aside for the relevant period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:02:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 446 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118858</link>
      <description>For the period before 1-9-1996, Rule 57C required reversal of credit on the full quantity of common inputs used in exempted goods, and that computation included processing loss. The disputed issue was whether processing loss should be excluded from the inputs relatable to exempted production. The text states that the entire quantity consumed in manufacturing exempted goods had to be taken into account, so the credit reversal was to be computed on that basis. The contrary view of the lower appellate authority was therefore set aside for the relevant period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>