<?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 (12) TMI 365 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120746</link>
    <description>Re-credit of Cenvat credit was held permissible where the assessee had first reversed credit on light diesel oil stock in compliance with the then prevailing departmental instruction and earlier Board circular. After the Board revised its view and took a contrary position, the assessee sought restoration of the reversed credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed re-credit, and CESTAT found no material ground to interfere with that view. The departmental challenge therefore failed, and the re-credit remained valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:24:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 365 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120746</link>
      <description>Re-credit of Cenvat credit was held permissible where the assessee had first reversed credit on light diesel oil stock in compliance with the then prevailing departmental instruction and earlier Board circular. After the Board revised its view and took a contrary position, the assessee sought restoration of the reversed credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed re-credit, and CESTAT found no material ground to interfere with that view. The departmental challenge therefore failed, and the re-credit remained valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>