<?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>2008 (6) TMI 480 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124245</link>
    <description>Deemed credit on aluminium shots was admissible where aluminium ingots had suffered the same duty rate, both products fell under unwrought aluminium, and the shots were generated from duty-paid ingots through job work under intimation under Rule 57F(2). The credit chain did not exceed the duty already attributable to the ingots, so no excess credit was availed and the situation was revenue neutral. On that basis, the denial of deemed credit was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:22:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161199" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 480 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124245</link>
      <description>Deemed credit on aluminium shots was admissible where aluminium ingots had suffered the same duty rate, both products fell under unwrought aluminium, and the shots were generated from duty-paid ingots through job work under intimation under Rule 57F(2). The credit chain did not exceed the duty already attributable to the ingots, so no excess credit was availed and the situation was revenue neutral. On that basis, the denial of deemed credit was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>