<?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 (7) TMI 1067 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128298</link>
    <description>A duty exemption or set-off notification was interpreted as granting relief for duty already paid on specified inputs used in manufacture, without requiring one-to-one correlation between particular inputs and final products. Duty paid on inputs received before the change-over date remained available for set-off against duty on final products cleared later. The existence of a parallel proforma credit scheme did not defeat that entitlement where both schemes operated concurrently and the assessee was permitted to opt for proforma credit. On that basis, the credit claim was upheld and the demand under Section 11A was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 09:45:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1067 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128298</link>
      <description>A duty exemption or set-off notification was interpreted as granting relief for duty already paid on specified inputs used in manufacture, without requiring one-to-one correlation between particular inputs and final products. Duty paid on inputs received before the change-over date remained available for set-off against duty on final products cleared later. The existence of a parallel proforma credit scheme did not defeat that entitlement where both schemes operated concurrently and the assessee was permitted to opt for proforma credit. On that basis, the credit claim was upheld and the demand under Section 11A was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>