<?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 (4) TMI 277 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222081</link>
    <description>The High Court of Gujarat upheld the Customs, Excise &amp;amp; Service Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision in appeals by Revenue regarding excise duty payment by job workers for manufacturing dyes and dye intermediates. The Court rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument that Cenvat credit should have been reversed, affirming that job workers could pay excise duty despite an exemption notification. The Court distinguished between sale and job work scenarios, emphasizing the entitlement to credit under the Modvat scheme. Consequently, Tax Appeal No. 1086 of 2010 was dismissed, with no costs awarded, and Tax Appeal No. 1540 of 2010, related to a penalty, was also dismissed based on the first appeal&#039;s outcome.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 277 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222081</link>
      <description>The High Court of Gujarat upheld the Customs, Excise &amp;amp; Service Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision in appeals by Revenue regarding excise duty payment by job workers for manufacturing dyes and dye intermediates. The Court rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument that Cenvat credit should have been reversed, affirming that job workers could pay excise duty despite an exemption notification. The Court distinguished between sale and job work scenarios, emphasizing the entitlement to credit under the Modvat scheme. Consequently, Tax Appeal No. 1086 of 2010 was dismissed, with no costs awarded, and Tax Appeal No. 1540 of 2010, related to a penalty, was also dismissed based on the first appeal&#039;s outcome.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>