<?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>2010 (5) TMI 413 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201392</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was held inadmissible on inputs used during the period of full SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2001-C.E., because the assessee was still clearing goods as fully exempt and could not rely on the concessional regime under Notification No. 9/2001-C.E. merely by switching over later. The wrongly availed credit was therefore recoverable with interest. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the returns did not disclose the date of crossing the exemption threshold or the dates of credit availment, and the consolidated quarterly disclosure was insufficient to detect the wrongful credit, amounting to suppression of material facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175004" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 413 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201392</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was held inadmissible on inputs used during the period of full SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2001-C.E., because the assessee was still clearing goods as fully exempt and could not rely on the concessional regime under Notification No. 9/2001-C.E. merely by switching over later. The wrongly availed credit was therefore recoverable with interest. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the returns did not disclose the date of crossing the exemption threshold or the dates of credit availment, and the consolidated quarterly disclosure was insufficient to detect the wrongful credit, amounting to suppression of material facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>