<?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 (10) TMI 192 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3786</link>
    <description>A deemed credit notification permitting credit without duty-paying documents allowed the credit only at the time of clearance of the final product. The scheme was treated as imposing a timing condition, so the manufacturer could not avail deemed credit earlier than clearance, unlike normal input credit taken on receipt of inputs. The departmental challenge failed because the assessees&#039; claim to earlier credit was inconsistent with the notification&#039;s express restriction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 192 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3786</link>
      <description>A deemed credit notification permitting credit without duty-paying documents allowed the credit only at the time of clearance of the final product. The scheme was treated as imposing a timing condition, so the manufacturer could not avail deemed credit earlier than clearance, unlike normal input credit taken on receipt of inputs. The departmental challenge failed because the assessees&#039; claim to earlier credit was inconsistent with the notification&#039;s express restriction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>