<?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 (11) TMI 165 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3886</link>
    <description>Credit on wire rods used for drawing wire was treated as admissible for the relevant period because the Board circular and retrospective amendment to the Cenvat Credit Rules were understood to regularise input-stage credit on wire rods and permit its use in the wire drawing process. On that basis, denial of credit merely because the input was converted into wire was not justified, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 165 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3886</link>
      <description>Credit on wire rods used for drawing wire was treated as admissible for the relevant period because the Board circular and retrospective amendment to the Cenvat Credit Rules were understood to regularise input-stage credit on wire rods and permit its use in the wire drawing process. On that basis, denial of credit merely because the input was converted into wire was not justified, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>