<?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 (4) TMI 638 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207960</link>
    <description>Notification No. 6/2002-CE(NT) permitted deemed credit at a fixed percentage of the aggregate duty of excise and additional duty of excise, and it did not require segregation of the aggregate into separate basic excise duty and additional excise duty heads. Credit could be utilised for payment of either duty without differentiation, so a demand based only on the assessee&#039;s accounting treatment had no basis in the notification. The matter was also revenue neutral, as the duty incidence would be the same even if the credit had been booked differently. The proposed demand, interest and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 638 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207960</link>
      <description>Notification No. 6/2002-CE(NT) permitted deemed credit at a fixed percentage of the aggregate duty of excise and additional duty of excise, and it did not require segregation of the aggregate into separate basic excise duty and additional excise duty heads. Credit could be utilised for payment of either duty without differentiation, so a demand based only on the assessee&#039;s accounting treatment had no basis in the notification. The matter was also revenue neutral, as the duty incidence would be the same even if the credit had been booked differently. The proposed demand, interest and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>