<?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 (11) TMI 1035 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246683</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was stated to be admissible on Special Additional Duty actually paid on imported goods where the customs assessment accepting that duty was never challenged and the exemption position under Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. was not free from doubt. The note also states that denial of credit would be unsustainable because the duty had been paid and reflected in statutory records, while the Revenue could not retain the duty and simultaneously refuse credit. It further records that the extended limitation period could not be invoked because the availment of credit was disclosed in returns and there was no suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:40:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 1035 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246683</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was stated to be admissible on Special Additional Duty actually paid on imported goods where the customs assessment accepting that duty was never challenged and the exemption position under Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. was not free from doubt. The note also states that denial of credit would be unsustainable because the duty had been paid and reflected in statutory records, while the Revenue could not retain the duty and simultaneously refuse credit. It further records that the extended limitation period could not be invoked because the availment of credit was disclosed in returns and there was no suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>