<?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 330 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222134</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was held inadmissible in respect of Sugar Cess paid under the Sugar Cess Act, 1982 because Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not include Sugar Cess among the eligible credits available to a manufacturer. The argument based on Education Cess being collected on Sugar Cess did not assist, as the dispute concerned the admissibility of Cenvat credit and refund, not the levy of Education Cess. The refund claim was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:10:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 330 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222134</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was held inadmissible in respect of Sugar Cess paid under the Sugar Cess Act, 1982 because Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not include Sugar Cess among the eligible credits available to a manufacturer. The argument based on Education Cess being collected on Sugar Cess did not assist, as the dispute concerned the admissibility of Cenvat credit and refund, not the levy of Education Cess. The refund claim was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>