<?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 478 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202696</link>
    <description>Credit taken on duty paid by suppliers under an area-based exemption scheme was examined against refund already granted to the suppliers, with the tribunal noting that excess duty had been paid on freight and insurance that were not includible in assessable value. Retaining the corresponding credit with the appellants would have caused a further loss to the exchequer beyond the benefit contemplated by the exemption notification, so full waiver of pre-deposit was declined and a 50% deposit was directed. The cited High Court ruling was held inapplicable on the facts. The prima facie challenge to the extended period also failed because the taking of credit on freight and insurance charges had not been disclosed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 478 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202696</link>
      <description>Credit taken on duty paid by suppliers under an area-based exemption scheme was examined against refund already granted to the suppliers, with the tribunal noting that excess duty had been paid on freight and insurance that were not includible in assessable value. Retaining the corresponding credit with the appellants would have caused a further loss to the exchequer beyond the benefit contemplated by the exemption notification, so full waiver of pre-deposit was declined and a 50% deposit was directed. The cited High Court ruling was held inapplicable on the facts. The prima facie challenge to the extended period also failed because the taking of credit on freight and insurance charges had not been disclosed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>