<?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>2007 (6) TMI 364 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121820</link>
    <description>Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002 permits 50% credit on capital goods in the year of receipt and the balance in a later year, but Rule 4(4) bars credit on the value component for which depreciation has been claimed under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order records that the earlier Division Bench view, which treated depreciation on the non-credit portion as unobjectionable, appeared inconsistent with the text of Rule 4(4). It further states that, on judicial discipline, a coordinate Bench cannot disregard an earlier decision even if considered incorrect; the proper course is reference to a larger Bench for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:43:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 364 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121820</link>
      <description>Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002 permits 50% credit on capital goods in the year of receipt and the balance in a later year, but Rule 4(4) bars credit on the value component for which depreciation has been claimed under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order records that the earlier Division Bench view, which treated depreciation on the non-credit portion as unobjectionable, appeared inconsistent with the text of Rule 4(4). It further states that, on judicial discipline, a coordinate Bench cannot disregard an earlier decision even if considered incorrect; the proper course is reference to a larger Bench for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121820</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>