<?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>2016 (2) TMI 863 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272158</link>
    <description>Proportionate reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to electricity cleared to outside parties was treated as sufficient compliance with Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal noted that once the assessee had debited the credit linked to the wheeled-out electricity before the show cause notice, no undue benefit remained and recovery of 8% or 10% of the value of such electricity was unwarranted. The principle applied was that credit is not admissible for inputs attributable to electricity wheeled out, but reversal of the attributable credit cures the objection. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s claim for additional payment failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 01:07:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 863 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272158</link>
      <description>Proportionate reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to electricity cleared to outside parties was treated as sufficient compliance with Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal noted that once the assessee had debited the credit linked to the wheeled-out electricity before the show cause notice, no undue benefit remained and recovery of 8% or 10% of the value of such electricity was unwarranted. The principle applied was that credit is not admissible for inputs attributable to electricity wheeled out, but reversal of the attributable credit cures the objection. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s claim for additional payment failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272158</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>