<?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 (10) TMI 405 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124326</link>
    <description>The Revenue appealed the clearance of used capital goods as &#039;scrap&#039; without paying the full credit initially availed. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the company&#039;s appeal, prompting the Revenue to challenge the decision. The main argument was that the goods were removed &#039;as such,&#039; requiring payment of the initial credit. However, the Tribunal clarified that this rule applied only to capital goods removed &#039;as such,&#039; not used cenvated capital goods. As the goods were used for 8 years, they were not considered &#039;as such.&#039; The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed for lacking merit as the Tribunal&#039;s decision remained unchallenged by a higher court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:20:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 405 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124326</link>
      <description>The Revenue appealed the clearance of used capital goods as &#039;scrap&#039; without paying the full credit initially availed. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the company&#039;s appeal, prompting the Revenue to challenge the decision. The main argument was that the goods were removed &#039;as such,&#039; requiring payment of the initial credit. However, the Tribunal clarified that this rule applied only to capital goods removed &#039;as such,&#039; not used cenvated capital goods. As the goods were used for 8 years, they were not considered &#039;as such.&#039; The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed for lacking merit as the Tribunal&#039;s decision remained unchallenged by a higher court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>