<?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>2013 (3) TMI 292 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221526</link>
    <description>Reversal of an amount equal to 8% of the price of an intermediate product used in manufacturing exempted final products was treated as sufficient compliance with the Cenvat credit scheme for claiming exemption. The Tribunal applied earlier precedent holding that such prescribed percentage reversal meets the credit-reversal requirement where common inputs are used in exempted goods. Because the factual reversal of 8% was not disputed, the exemption could not be denied on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194879" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 292 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221526</link>
      <description>Reversal of an amount equal to 8% of the price of an intermediate product used in manufacturing exempted final products was treated as sufficient compliance with the Cenvat credit scheme for claiming exemption. The Tribunal applied earlier precedent holding that such prescribed percentage reversal meets the credit-reversal requirement where common inputs are used in exempted goods. Because the factual reversal of 8% was not disputed, the exemption could not be denied on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221526</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>