<?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 (2) TMI 651 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256651</link>
    <description>Credit of Additional Duty of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 could not be used to pay Basic Excise Duty, because Rule 3(6)(b) permitted utilisation only in the manner expressly provided for that credit. A Board circular concerning the reverse situation did not authorise such use, and prior authority supported the same restriction, so the duty demand with interest was maintained. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not sustainable because the dispute arose from rule interpretation and there was no material showing suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, so the penalty was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376316" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 651 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256651</link>
      <description>Credit of Additional Duty of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 could not be used to pay Basic Excise Duty, because Rule 3(6)(b) permitted utilisation only in the manner expressly provided for that credit. A Board circular concerning the reverse situation did not authorise such use, and prior authority supported the same restriction, so the duty demand with interest was maintained. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not sustainable because the dispute arose from rule interpretation and there was no material showing suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, so the penalty was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>