<?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 (7) TMI 430 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329832</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning cenvat credit reversal for exempted goods clearance under CCR 2004. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn, successfully argued that certain services exclusively used for export were eligible for 100% credit and not subject to proportionate credit reversal. The Tribunal upheld the appellant&#039;s position, emphasizing the eligibility of services under Rule 6(5) of CCR and the government&#039;s policy to support competitiveness in foreign markets by not burdening exported goods with domestic taxes. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 430 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329832</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning cenvat credit reversal for exempted goods clearance under CCR 2004. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn, successfully argued that certain services exclusively used for export were eligible for 100% credit and not subject to proportionate credit reversal. The Tribunal upheld the appellant&#039;s position, emphasizing the eligibility of services under Rule 6(5) of CCR and the government&#039;s policy to support competitiveness in foreign markets by not burdening exported goods with domestic taxes. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>