<?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 (11) TMI 1223 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240046</link>
    <description>Deemed Cenvat credit was treated as admissible on grey fabrics received by a processor for manufacture of processed fabrics, even though the fabrics were not specifically named as declared inputs. The Tribunal noted that the same issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier proceedings and that, in the assessee&#039;s own case for another period, the departmental objection had been dropped. As the processed goods were cleared for export under bond and some clearances were for home consumption, no material distinction was found to deny the benefit. The refund claims were therefore correctly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1223 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240046</link>
      <description>Deemed Cenvat credit was treated as admissible on grey fabrics received by a processor for manufacture of processed fabrics, even though the fabrics were not specifically named as declared inputs. The Tribunal noted that the same issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier proceedings and that, in the assessee&#039;s own case for another period, the departmental objection had been dropped. As the processed goods were cleared for export under bond and some clearances were for home consumption, no material distinction was found to deny the benefit. The refund claims were therefore correctly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>