<?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 (5) TMI 253 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247326</link>
    <description>The writ petitions at the show-cause stage were maintainable because the challenge extended beyond the notices to the vires of the credit provisions, and the same issue was already before the appellate forum; the objection of prematurity was therefore rejected. On the substantive issue, Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not apply to sulphuric acid that arose only as a technological by-product in the manufacture of zinc or copper, since no common input was used to produce it as an independent final product. Credit could not be reversed, and the 8% payment was not attracted; the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2022 11:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 253 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247326</link>
      <description>The writ petitions at the show-cause stage were maintainable because the challenge extended beyond the notices to the vires of the credit provisions, and the same issue was already before the appellate forum; the objection of prematurity was therefore rejected. On the substantive issue, Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not apply to sulphuric acid that arose only as a technological by-product in the manufacture of zinc or copper, since no common input was used to produce it as an independent final product. Credit could not be reversed, and the 8% payment was not attracted; the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>