<?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 534 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125657</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was not admissible on additional customs duty adjusted through a DEPB scrip during the relevant period because the applicable Foreign Trade Policy and customs notification allowed credit only where duty was paid in cash. The Tribunal followed the Larger Bench view that debit through the DEPB exemption scheme did not create an entitlement to credit. The later amendment to the policy and notification was treated as prospective only and could not reopen earlier assessments. As the issue turned on interpretation and there was supporting contrary authority, penalty was not warranted; the duty demand was upheld and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:06:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 534 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125657</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was not admissible on additional customs duty adjusted through a DEPB scrip during the relevant period because the applicable Foreign Trade Policy and customs notification allowed credit only where duty was paid in cash. The Tribunal followed the Larger Bench view that debit through the DEPB exemption scheme did not create an entitlement to credit. The later amendment to the policy and notification was treated as prospective only and could not reopen earlier assessments. As the issue turned on interpretation and there was supporting contrary authority, penalty was not warranted; the duty demand was upheld and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>