<?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>2009 (2) TMI 655 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126039</link>
    <description>Section 11D of the Central Excise Act cannot be used to recover again an amount already paid to the Government under Rule 57CC for exempted clearances. The Tribunal applied prior decisions holding that, where the prescribed 8% payment had already been made in respect of exempted goods, the amount could not be treated as recoverable excise duty collected from buyers. It also held that a later circular and invoice endorsement requirements under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules could not be applied retrospectively to clearances made in 2001-2002. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and the appellant obtained consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:23:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 655 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126039</link>
      <description>Section 11D of the Central Excise Act cannot be used to recover again an amount already paid to the Government under Rule 57CC for exempted clearances. The Tribunal applied prior decisions holding that, where the prescribed 8% payment had already been made in respect of exempted goods, the amount could not be treated as recoverable excise duty collected from buyers. It also held that a later circular and invoice endorsement requirements under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules could not be applied retrospectively to clearances made in 2001-2002. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and the appellant obtained consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>