<?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>2012 (2) TMI 104 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210477</link>
    <description>Where common Modvat/Cenvat credit inputs are used in the manufacture of both exempted and dutiable biscuits, the credit relatable to exempted clearances may be quantified at the appellate stage rather than sustaining a percentage-based demand under Rule 6. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not dispute common use of inputs, but sought redetermination of the reversible credit attributable to exempted goods. It therefore held that the proper course was quantification of the credit and interest to be reversed, with an opportunity of hearing, instead of confirming the demand on the value of exempted products. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for that purpose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 104 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210477</link>
      <description>Where common Modvat/Cenvat credit inputs are used in the manufacture of both exempted and dutiable biscuits, the credit relatable to exempted clearances may be quantified at the appellate stage rather than sustaining a percentage-based demand under Rule 6. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not dispute common use of inputs, but sought redetermination of the reversible credit attributable to exempted goods. It therefore held that the proper course was quantification of the credit and interest to be reversed, with an opportunity of hearing, instead of confirming the demand on the value of exempted products. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for that purpose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>