<?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 1145 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265870</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit lawfully availed on duty-paid inputs was used to pay duty on clearance of duty-free inputs into the domestic tariff area, and the credit itself was not disputed. Because CENVAT utilisation does not require strict one-to-one correlation between credit earned and credit used, that utilisation was treated as sufficient to justify dispensation of the pre-deposit requirement at the interim stage. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:50:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1145 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265870</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit lawfully availed on duty-paid inputs was used to pay duty on clearance of duty-free inputs into the domestic tariff area, and the credit itself was not disputed. Because CENVAT utilisation does not require strict one-to-one correlation between credit earned and credit used, that utilisation was treated as sufficient to justify dispensation of the pre-deposit requirement at the interim stage. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>