<?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>2015 (1) TMI 756 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255557</link>
    <description>Packing bought-out and manufactured items into Cable Jointing Kits did not amount to manufacture, so the dispute turned on wrongful utilisation of Cenvat credit rather than excise duty liability. Under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, credit is unavailable for inputs used in exempted goods, and where inputs are used for both dutiable and exempted goods, separate accounts must be maintained with credit confined to inputs used for dutiable goods. Reliance on Sidhartha Tubes was misplaced because it addressed valuation, not Cenvat credit adjustment. The assessee was therefore not entitled to the claimed adjustment, and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 756 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255557</link>
      <description>Packing bought-out and manufactured items into Cable Jointing Kits did not amount to manufacture, so the dispute turned on wrongful utilisation of Cenvat credit rather than excise duty liability. Under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, credit is unavailable for inputs used in exempted goods, and where inputs are used for both dutiable and exempted goods, separate accounts must be maintained with credit confined to inputs used for dutiable goods. Reliance on Sidhartha Tubes was misplaced because it addressed valuation, not Cenvat credit adjustment. The assessee was therefore not entitled to the claimed adjustment, and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255557</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>