<?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 1138 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330540</link>
    <description>Where duty on the final product has been assessed and accepted, CENVAT credit on inputs cannot be denied merely because the department later alleges that the process did not amount to manufacture. The text applies settled precedent that acceptance of duty on clearance of the final product prevents denial or reversal of credit on the ground of absence of manufacture. On that basis, the objection to input credit was rejected and CENVAT credit was treated as admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1138 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330540</link>
      <description>Where duty on the final product has been assessed and accepted, CENVAT credit on inputs cannot be denied merely because the department later alleges that the process did not amount to manufacture. The text applies settled precedent that acceptance of duty on clearance of the final product prevents denial or reversal of credit on the ground of absence of manufacture. On that basis, the objection to input credit was rejected and CENVAT credit was treated as admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>