<?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 491 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122884</link>
    <description>Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules applies only where inputs on which credit has been taken are used in the manufacture of exempted final products and separate accounts are not maintained; it was found inapplicable to blast furnace gas generated incidentally as a by-product or waste in sponge iron manufacture, so the 8% payment was not payable. The refund claim was also not barred by unjust enrichment, because the presumption under Sections 12A and 12B is rebuttable and the documentary record showed that buyers had not actually borne the disputed amount. The refund rejection was therefore unsustainable and relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:32:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 491 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122884</link>
      <description>Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules applies only where inputs on which credit has been taken are used in the manufacture of exempted final products and separate accounts are not maintained; it was found inapplicable to blast furnace gas generated incidentally as a by-product or waste in sponge iron manufacture, so the 8% payment was not payable. The refund claim was also not barred by unjust enrichment, because the presumption under Sections 12A and 12B is rebuttable and the documentary record showed that buyers had not actually borne the disputed amount. The refund rejection was therefore unsustainable and relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>