<?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>2011 (1) TMI 222 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203533</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit of basic excise duty could not be used to discharge education cess liability because Rule 3(7)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits utilisation of education cess credit only for payment of education cess on excisable goods or taxable services. A contrary earlier view was treated as per incuriam for being inconsistent with the statute, and refund claims founded on that impermissible utilisation were therefore inadmissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 08:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 222 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203533</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit of basic excise duty could not be used to discharge education cess liability because Rule 3(7)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits utilisation of education cess credit only for payment of education cess on excisable goods or taxable services. A contrary earlier view was treated as per incuriam for being inconsistent with the statute, and refund claims founded on that impermissible utilisation were therefore inadmissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203533</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>