<?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>2012 (3) TMI 356 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246408</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on common inputs used in both dutiable and exempted goods was reversed to the extent attributable to exempted products, and that undisputed reversal brought the dispute within the retrospective amendment to Rule 6 made by the Finance Act 2010. The Tribunal treated the issue as covered by its earlier ruling and held that, in these circumstances, a demand based on non-reversal of 8% or 10% of exempted clearances could not be sustained. The adverse order was therefore set aside and relief followed for the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:14:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 356 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246408</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on common inputs used in both dutiable and exempted goods was reversed to the extent attributable to exempted products, and that undisputed reversal brought the dispute within the retrospective amendment to Rule 6 made by the Finance Act 2010. The Tribunal treated the issue as covered by its earlier ruling and held that, in these circumstances, a demand based on non-reversal of 8% or 10% of exempted clearances could not be sustained. The adverse order was therefore set aside and relief followed for the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>