<?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 (10) TMI 277 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265002</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on countervailing duty paid through a T.R.6 challan for jumbo rolls bought in customs auction was treated as admissible where the auction price included CVD, the challan specifically endorsed the duty amount, and Customs certified the payment. Although the challan was not one of the specified documents, the duty payment was otherwise proved on record, so the document was accepted as sufficient evidence under Rule 57G and the relevant notification. Revenue&#039;s contrary precedent was found inapplicable on these facts because the goods were imported and duty had been validly paid. The denial of credit was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2015 21:41:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 277 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265002</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on countervailing duty paid through a T.R.6 challan for jumbo rolls bought in customs auction was treated as admissible where the auction price included CVD, the challan specifically endorsed the duty amount, and Customs certified the payment. Although the challan was not one of the specified documents, the duty payment was otherwise proved on record, so the document was accepted as sufficient evidence under Rule 57G and the relevant notification. Revenue&#039;s contrary precedent was found inapplicable on these facts because the goods were imported and duty had been validly paid. The denial of credit was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>