<?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 (8) TMI 248 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215563</link>
    <description>Where two manufacturing units were merely clubbed together and the assessee&#039;s identity remained unchanged, Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was held not to govern the restoration or transfer of reversed Cenvat credit. The relevant credit continued to relate to the same assessee, and the pre-September 2009 factual setting meant the merger or sale transfer provision was inapplicable. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s claim for restoration of credit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188949" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 248 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215563</link>
      <description>Where two manufacturing units were merely clubbed together and the assessee&#039;s identity remained unchanged, Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was held not to govern the restoration or transfer of reversed Cenvat credit. The relevant credit continued to relate to the same assessee, and the pre-September 2009 factual setting meant the merger or sale transfer provision was inapplicable. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s claim for restoration of credit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>