<?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 322 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243725</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on S.S. wire purchased from a wire drawing unit could not be denied for clearances made between June 2003 and October 2003. An earlier circular had taken the view that buyers of S.S. wire were not entitled to credit, but a later circular and notification clarified that the amount paid by the wire drawing unit would be treated as duty and that credit to the buyer could not be refused for clearances up to 8.7.2004. On that basis, the denial of credit was unsustainable and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:31:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 322 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243725</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on S.S. wire purchased from a wire drawing unit could not be denied for clearances made between June 2003 and October 2003. An earlier circular had taken the view that buyers of S.S. wire were not entitled to credit, but a later circular and notification clarified that the amount paid by the wire drawing unit would be treated as duty and that credit to the buyer could not be refused for clearances up to 8.7.2004. On that basis, the denial of credit was unsustainable and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</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=243725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>