<?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>2015 (8) TMI 1344 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188564</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a dispute over availing cenvat credit of Central Excise duty on printed plastic laminates. It was held that the duty demand based on Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was unjustified as printed plastic laminates did not qualify as exempted goods. The appellant was not required to reverse cenvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing printed plastic laminates, and the obligation to pay 10% of the total price of exempted final products was deemed inapplicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1344 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188564</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a dispute over availing cenvat credit of Central Excise duty on printed plastic laminates. It was held that the duty demand based on Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was unjustified as printed plastic laminates did not qualify as exempted goods. The appellant was not required to reverse cenvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing printed plastic laminates, and the obligation to pay 10% of the total price of exempted final products was deemed inapplicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>