<?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 (12) TMI 322 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335677</link>
    <description>An exemption notification requiring that no input credit be taken is treated as satisfied where the assessee later reverses the credit attributable to inputs in stock. The cited authorities view such reversal as curing the initial infraction, and the timing of reversal is not material by itself. On that basis, the denial of exemption was held unsustainable, and the demand and penalty were set aside because the assessee remained eligible for exemption under the notification despite the later reversal of credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2016 13:18:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 322 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335677</link>
      <description>An exemption notification requiring that no input credit be taken is treated as satisfied where the assessee later reverses the credit attributable to inputs in stock. The cited authorities view such reversal as curing the initial infraction, and the timing of reversal is not material by itself. On that basis, the denial of exemption was held unsustainable, and the demand and penalty were set aside because the assessee remained eligible for exemption under the notification despite the later reversal of credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335677</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>