<?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 (5) TMI 312 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205980</link>
    <description>The deemed credit notification was intended to offset duty on inputs used in processed fabrics where duty-paying documents were unavailable, and it barred deemed credit only when actual credit was taken on the declared inputs covered by the notification. Grey fabrics were not among those declared inputs, and the later amendment adding a bar for unprocessed fabrics confirmed that no such restriction existed for the period in dispute. In the absence of any express exclusion, actual CENVAT credit on grey fabrics received from 100% EOUs and deemed MODVAT credit under the notification could be availed simultaneously, so the Revenue&#039;s objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 312 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205980</link>
      <description>The deemed credit notification was intended to offset duty on inputs used in processed fabrics where duty-paying documents were unavailable, and it barred deemed credit only when actual credit was taken on the declared inputs covered by the notification. Grey fabrics were not among those declared inputs, and the later amendment adding a bar for unprocessed fabrics confirmed that no such restriction existed for the period in dispute. In the absence of any express exclusion, actual CENVAT credit on grey fabrics received from 100% EOUs and deemed MODVAT credit under the notification could be availed simultaneously, so the Revenue&#039;s objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>