<?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 471 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118892</link>
    <description>Credit under Rule 57A was available on semi-processed fabrics received by a processor where duty had in fact been paid on those inputs, even if part of that duty was discharged by the first processor through deemed credit. The rule required only that duty be paid on the inputs received; it did not limit admissibility to duty paid from PLA. The deemed credit notification barred only the grant of deemed credit on receipt of semi-processed fabrics and did not prevent the recipient from taking credit of actual duty paid. Credit on the duty actually paid was therefore admissible, including the portion paid through deemed credit, and the demand disallowing it was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:05:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 471 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118892</link>
      <description>Credit under Rule 57A was available on semi-processed fabrics received by a processor where duty had in fact been paid on those inputs, even if part of that duty was discharged by the first processor through deemed credit. The rule required only that duty be paid on the inputs received; it did not limit admissibility to duty paid from PLA. The deemed credit notification barred only the grant of deemed credit on receipt of semi-processed fabrics and did not prevent the recipient from taking credit of actual duty paid. Credit on the duty actually paid was therefore admissible, including the portion paid through deemed credit, and the demand disallowing it was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>