<?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 (5) TMI 990 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328009</link>
    <description>Duty paid on capital goods sent to a job worker was treated as eligible Cenvat credit in the recipient&#039;s hands, subject to the 180-day condition in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. When the goods were not received back within that period, the manufacturer reversed the credit and issued revised invoices, and the credit was availed only once. On that basis, the essential conditions for credit were satisfied and the credit remained admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 990 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328009</link>
      <description>Duty paid on capital goods sent to a job worker was treated as eligible Cenvat credit in the recipient&#039;s hands, subject to the 180-day condition in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. When the goods were not received back within that period, the manufacturer reversed the credit and issued revised invoices, and the credit was availed only once. On that basis, the essential conditions for credit were satisfied and the credit remained admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>