<?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 (8) TMI 248 - CESTAT  CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250298</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order in a case involving the availing of MODVAT/CENVAT credit for inputs used in manufacturing dutiable and exempted products. The Tribunal found that once the CENVAT credit taken was reversed for exempted goods, there was no liability to pay the specified amount demanded by the Revenue. The Tribunal referred to retrospective amendments by the Finance Act, 2010, and held that there was no requirement to reverse a specific percentage of the price of exempted goods when common inputs were used without separate accounts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld in 2014.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 248 - CESTAT  CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250298</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order in a case involving the availing of MODVAT/CENVAT credit for inputs used in manufacturing dutiable and exempted products. The Tribunal found that once the CENVAT credit taken was reversed for exempted goods, there was no liability to pay the specified amount demanded by the Revenue. The Tribunal referred to retrospective amendments by the Finance Act, 2010, and held that there was no requirement to reverse a specific percentage of the price of exempted goods when common inputs were used without separate accounts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld in 2014.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>