<?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 1943 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266669</link>
    <description>Rule 9A(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 permits availment of Cenvat credit on the basis of documentary evidence establishing entitlement, and the formula-based restriction in Notification No. 35/2003 is not applicable where such documents exist. The text also notes that credit relating to stock remaining with a job worker was treated as eligible under the rule, which answered the objection of excess credit in favour of the assessee and supported sustaining the credit claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:01:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1943 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266669</link>
      <description>Rule 9A(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 permits availment of Cenvat credit on the basis of documentary evidence establishing entitlement, and the formula-based restriction in Notification No. 35/2003 is not applicable where such documents exist. The text also notes that credit relating to stock remaining with a job worker was treated as eligible under the rule, which answered the objection of excess credit in favour of the assessee and supported sustaining the credit claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266669</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>