<?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 648 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217710</link>
    <description>Retrospective amendments to Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules and Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules required reversal of credit attributable to common inputs used in exempted clearances. The assessee was therefore bound to reverse the credit taken on inputs used in exempted products, and the reversal already made attracted interest because the liability operated from the relevant date under the Finance Act, 2005 amendments. Penalty was not warranted, as the dispute arose from statutory interpretation rather than contumacious conduct. The credit reversal and interest liability were sustained, while penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 648 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217710</link>
      <description>Retrospective amendments to Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules and Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules required reversal of credit attributable to common inputs used in exempted clearances. The assessee was therefore bound to reverse the credit taken on inputs used in exempted products, and the reversal already made attracted interest because the liability operated from the relevant date under the Finance Act, 2005 amendments. Penalty was not warranted, as the dispute arose from statutory interpretation rather than contumacious conduct. The credit reversal and interest liability were sustained, while penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>