<?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 (10) TMI 452 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217514</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was treated as admissible for Special Additional Duty of Customs debited under the DEPB and Target Plus schemes, because the binding circular clarified that duty paid through those schemes qualified for Cenvat benefit or drawback, including full credit of the 4% Special CVD. The tribunal applied its earlier precedent taking the same view, and the High Court found no error in that approach. On that settled position, the Revenue&#039;s challenge did not raise any substantial question of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 452 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217514</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was treated as admissible for Special Additional Duty of Customs debited under the DEPB and Target Plus schemes, because the binding circular clarified that duty paid through those schemes qualified for Cenvat benefit or drawback, including full credit of the 4% Special CVD. The tribunal applied its earlier precedent taking the same view, and the High Court found no error in that approach. On that settled position, the Revenue&#039;s challenge did not raise any substantial question of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217514</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>