<?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>2007 (8) TMI 132 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2623</link>
    <description>Modvat credit accumulated when the enterprise operated as a domestic tariff unit was held utilisable after conversion into a 100% Export Oriented Unit for duty on clearances of goods manufactured before conversion. The Tribunal treated the Revenue&#039;s circular on capital goods as inapplicable to credit earned on duty-paid inputs, and read Rule 100H as restricting fresh availment by a 100% EOU rather than causing automatic lapse of existing credit. Distinct accounts, continued central excise registration, and departmental knowledge of the clearances supported the conclusion that no express prohibition barred utilisation, so the duty demand did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 132 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2623</link>
      <description>Modvat credit accumulated when the enterprise operated as a domestic tariff unit was held utilisable after conversion into a 100% Export Oriented Unit for duty on clearances of goods manufactured before conversion. The Tribunal treated the Revenue&#039;s circular on capital goods as inapplicable to credit earned on duty-paid inputs, and read Rule 100H as restricting fresh availment by a 100% EOU rather than causing automatic lapse of existing credit. Distinct accounts, continued central excise registration, and departmental knowledge of the clearances supported the conclusion that no express prohibition barred utilisation, so the duty demand did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>