<?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>2014 (2) TMI 160 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243560</link>
    <description>Credit on moulds and dies received for repair was not required to be reversed under Rule 16 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 because duty had been paid on receipt and the repaired goods were cleared on payment of duty equal to or more than the credit availed. The Tribunal treated the movement as falling within the entitlement recognised by Rule 16, and held that the assessee was not liable to reverse the credit. The denial of credit was therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 06:33:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344913" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 160 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243560</link>
      <description>Credit on moulds and dies received for repair was not required to be reversed under Rule 16 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 because duty had been paid on receipt and the repaired goods were cleared on payment of duty equal to or more than the credit availed. The Tribunal treated the movement as falling within the entitlement recognised by Rule 16, and held that the assessee was not liable to reverse the credit. The denial of credit was therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243560</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>