<?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 (11) TMI 772 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218757</link>
    <description>Inputs removed as such to sister concerns, where the Cenvat credit already taken had been reversed, did not require valuation at 115% of cost. Relying on the Larger Bench ruling in Eicher Tractors and the Board circular discussed there, the Tribunal treated reversal of the credit on the invoice value as sufficient for such clearances. The cost-based valuation method was held inapplicable to these unprocessed inputs, so no further revaluation was required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 772 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218757</link>
      <description>Inputs removed as such to sister concerns, where the Cenvat credit already taken had been reversed, did not require valuation at 115% of cost. Relying on the Larger Bench ruling in Eicher Tractors and the Board circular discussed there, the Tribunal treated reversal of the credit on the invoice value as sufficient for such clearances. The cost-based valuation method was held inapplicable to these unprocessed inputs, so no further revaluation was required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>