<?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>2006 (1) TMI 493 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119011</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on inputs used to manufacture medicines later destroyed after remission of duty is treated as inadmissible, because the scheme is applied on the basis that credit is available only where the final product suffers duty; remission is viewed as equivalent to clearance without duty, so retaining the credit would create an unintended refund-like benefit. The note also states that limitation does not protect the claimant where the goods were known to be unfit for human consumption and the credit should have been reversed when destruction occurred, making the longer period available and leaving the demand sustainable with interest and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jul 2012 13:41:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 493 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119011</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on inputs used to manufacture medicines later destroyed after remission of duty is treated as inadmissible, because the scheme is applied on the basis that credit is available only where the final product suffers duty; remission is viewed as equivalent to clearance without duty, so retaining the credit would create an unintended refund-like benefit. The note also states that limitation does not protect the claimant where the goods were known to be unfit for human consumption and the credit should have been reversed when destruction occurred, making the longer period available and leaving the demand sustainable with interest and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119011</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>