<?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 (11) TMI 991 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334973</link>
    <description>Where NCCD exemption applied to DTY manufactured from captively consumed POY, the Tribunal held that the assessee could not simultaneously take Cenvat credit of NCCD paid on the captive input and reuse that credit to discharge NCCD on other clearances. The exemption was treated as intended to prevent double levy within the same manufacturing chain; allowing both the exemption on the finished product and credit on the input would create a double benefit and defeat the levy. The Tribunal also held that prior decisions cited by the assessee were distinguishable. Penalty was not sustained because the dispute involved interpretation of law, while the demand and interest were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 16:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 991 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334973</link>
      <description>Where NCCD exemption applied to DTY manufactured from captively consumed POY, the Tribunal held that the assessee could not simultaneously take Cenvat credit of NCCD paid on the captive input and reuse that credit to discharge NCCD on other clearances. The exemption was treated as intended to prevent double levy within the same manufacturing chain; allowing both the exemption on the finished product and credit on the input would create a double benefit and defeat the levy. The Tribunal also held that prior decisions cited by the assessee were distinguishable. Penalty was not sustained because the dispute involved interpretation of law, while the demand and interest were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>