<?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 (8) TMI 610 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI-I</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121637</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit was treated as admissible on inputs used in manufacturing essential intermediate products, such as PCBs and transformers, where those intermediates were in turn used to make the final products. The broad definition of input was applied to cover goods used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture, so indirect participation through an intermediate stage did not break credit eligibility. Where common inputs were used for dutiable and exempt clearances and separate accounts were not maintained, the assessee had already paid the prescribed 8% on exempt goods. On those facts, no reversal of credit was required and the departmental appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:58:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 610 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI-I</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121637</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit was treated as admissible on inputs used in manufacturing essential intermediate products, such as PCBs and transformers, where those intermediates were in turn used to make the final products. The broad definition of input was applied to cover goods used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture, so indirect participation through an intermediate stage did not break credit eligibility. Where common inputs were used for dutiable and exempt clearances and separate accounts were not maintained, the assessee had already paid the prescribed 8% on exempt goods. On those facts, no reversal of credit was required and the departmental appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>