<?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 (12) TMI 332 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123132</link>
    <description>A retrospective amendment to Rule 16, read with the Board circular, regularised credit taken on inputs used in wire drawing and its utilisation for duty on drawn wire. The clarification showed that wire drawing units which had availed input credit and paid duty on the drawn wire were intended to be covered by the amendment. On that basis, credit on wire rods used in wire drawing activity was admissible, and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 332 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123132</link>
      <description>A retrospective amendment to Rule 16, read with the Board circular, regularised credit taken on inputs used in wire drawing and its utilisation for duty on drawn wire. The clarification showed that wire drawing units which had availed input credit and paid duty on the drawn wire were intended to be covered by the amendment. On that basis, credit on wire rods used in wire drawing activity was admissible, and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>