<?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 (9) TMI 817 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217009</link>
    <description>For imported inputs covered by a Bill of Entry, the six-month period for availing credit under Rule 57G(5) must be read harmoniously with customs clearance procedure. The Court stated that the Bill of Entry is relevant for Rule 57G, but the operative starting point for limitation is the date on which the out-of-charge order under Section 47(1) of the Customs Act is handed over to the importer, because only then can the goods be taken for home consumption. The departmental circular was noted as supporting computation from payment of duty, while the assessee&#039;s legal contention was accepted subject to factual verification on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2012 07:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 817 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217009</link>
      <description>For imported inputs covered by a Bill of Entry, the six-month period for availing credit under Rule 57G(5) must be read harmoniously with customs clearance procedure. The Court stated that the Bill of Entry is relevant for Rule 57G, but the operative starting point for limitation is the date on which the out-of-charge order under Section 47(1) of the Customs Act is handed over to the importer, because only then can the goods be taken for home consumption. The departmental circular was noted as supporting computation from payment of duty, while the assessee&#039;s legal contention was accepted subject to factual verification on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>