<?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 1545 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266270</link>
    <description>Balance Cenvat credit on capital goods was admissible in a later financial year only if the goods, other than specified exceptions, remained in the manufacturer&#039;s possession and use under Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Because the moulds had already been used, became waste and scrap, and were no longer with the assessee when the credit was claimed, the statutory condition was not met. The remaining 50% credit was therefore not admissible and the disallowance was upheld in favour of Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402216" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1545 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266270</link>
      <description>Balance Cenvat credit on capital goods was admissible in a later financial year only if the goods, other than specified exceptions, remained in the manufacturer&#039;s possession and use under Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Because the moulds had already been used, became waste and scrap, and were no longer with the assessee when the credit was claimed, the statutory condition was not met. The remaining 50% credit was therefore not admissible and the disallowance was upheld in favour of Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266270</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>