<?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 (12) TMI 218 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240553</link>
    <description>Proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was available for additional customs duty paid on copper wire bars used to manufacture copper wire rods, because both products were covered by the rule and attracted the same specific rate of duty. On that basis, the credit fully offset the duty on the finished rods, making the transaction revenue neutral and leaving no net duty liability. The objection that the duty-paid nature of the wire bars was unproved was rejected, as the department had proceeded on the footing that the bars were imported and had suffered additional customs duty, and the show cause notices did not dispute that character; the RT-12 returns also supported acceptance of duty payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Dec 2013 07:59:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 218 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240553</link>
      <description>Proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was available for additional customs duty paid on copper wire bars used to manufacture copper wire rods, because both products were covered by the rule and attracted the same specific rate of duty. On that basis, the credit fully offset the duty on the finished rods, making the transaction revenue neutral and leaving no net duty liability. The objection that the duty-paid nature of the wire bars was unproved was rejected, as the department had proceeded on the footing that the bars were imported and had suffered additional customs duty, and the show cause notices did not dispute that character; the RT-12 returns also supported acceptance of duty payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>