<?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>2008 (1) TMI 190 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4439</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on inputs transferred between units of the same group could not be denied merely because the receiving unit did not purchase them directly or the sending unit did not sell them in the usual commercial sense. The credit rules were read as requiring procurement of inputs for manufacture, not a narrow purchase condition, and the substitution of &quot;procured&quot; for &quot;purchase&quot; in Rule 7(4) reflected that position. As the record did not show that the inputs were unused or that duty had not been suffered, recovery of the credit was unsustainable and the assessee was held entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43782" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 190 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4439</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on inputs transferred between units of the same group could not be denied merely because the receiving unit did not purchase them directly or the sending unit did not sell them in the usual commercial sense. The credit rules were read as requiring procurement of inputs for manufacture, not a narrow purchase condition, and the substitution of &quot;procured&quot; for &quot;purchase&quot; in Rule 7(4) reflected that position. As the record did not show that the inputs were unused or that duty had not been suffered, recovery of the credit was unsustainable and the assessee was held entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>