<?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 (8) TMI 574 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236282</link>
    <description>Module inputs used for both recorded and unrecorded smart cards were treated as common inputs, so the manufacturer could not be denied the Rule 6(3) option merely because exempted clearances predominated. Plastic cards bearing customer-specific particulars were not common inputs and credit was inadmissible only for those exclusively used in recorded smart cards; generic plastic cards remained common inputs. Cenvat credit was also admissible on inputs used in exempted goods exported out of India. Extended limitation and equal penalty were unsustainable for common-input credit, though they could apply to the inadmissible exclusive-input portion. The matter was remitted for recomputation of demand, interest and penalty after excluding common-input credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198689" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 574 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236282</link>
      <description>Module inputs used for both recorded and unrecorded smart cards were treated as common inputs, so the manufacturer could not be denied the Rule 6(3) option merely because exempted clearances predominated. Plastic cards bearing customer-specific particulars were not common inputs and credit was inadmissible only for those exclusively used in recorded smart cards; generic plastic cards remained common inputs. Cenvat credit was also admissible on inputs used in exempted goods exported out of India. Extended limitation and equal penalty were unsustainable for common-input credit, though they could apply to the inadmissible exclusive-input portion. The matter was remitted for recomputation of demand, interest and penalty after excluding common-input credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>