<?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 (12) TMI 399 - Gujarat High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204113</link>
    <description>Reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to inputs used in exempted final products, where separate accounts were not maintained, was treated as sufficient compliance under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The High Court accepted the Tribunal&#039;s reliance on Chandrapur Magnet Wires Ltd. and Maize Products, holding that once the credit relatable to exempted clearances is reversed, no further amount calculated at 8% of the exempted goods&#039; value is payable. The Tribunal&#039;s approach was found consistent with the scheme of Rule 6 and binding precedent, and the appeal failed because no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177657" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 399 - Gujarat High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204113</link>
      <description>Reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to inputs used in exempted final products, where separate accounts were not maintained, was treated as sufficient compliance under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The High Court accepted the Tribunal&#039;s reliance on Chandrapur Magnet Wires Ltd. and Maize Products, holding that once the credit relatable to exempted clearances is reversed, no further amount calculated at 8% of the exempted goods&#039; value is payable. The Tribunal&#039;s approach was found consistent with the scheme of Rule 6 and binding precedent, and the appeal failed because no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204113</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>