<?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>2006 (1) TMI 30 - Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=578</link>
    <description>Manufacturers using cenvatable inputs in exempted goods may choose either to reverse credit attributable to those inputs or to pay duty on the exempted finished goods. Revenue cannot replace the manufacturer&#039;s chosen reversal of the entire credit with an 8% recovery under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. The 8% demand was unsustainable; the credit requiring reversal was to be redetermined, with penalty considered thereafter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 30 - Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=578</link>
      <description>Manufacturers using cenvatable inputs in exempted goods may choose either to reverse credit attributable to those inputs or to pay duty on the exempted finished goods. Revenue cannot replace the manufacturer&#039;s chosen reversal of the entire credit with an 8% recovery under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. The 8% demand was unsustainable; the credit requiring reversal was to be redetermined, with penalty considered thereafter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>