<?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>2017 (1) TMI 218 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337138</link>
    <description>Reversal of CENVAT credit on furnace oil was treated as satisfying an exemption notification condition requiring that no credit be taken on inputs or capital goods used in manufacture. Because the assessee had not availed credit on any other input or capital goods, the later reversal of the furnace oil credit was regarded as equivalent to non-availment. On that basis, the exemption condition was held to be complied with, and the assessee remained entitled to the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 08:55:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 218 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337138</link>
      <description>Reversal of CENVAT credit on furnace oil was treated as satisfying an exemption notification condition requiring that no credit be taken on inputs or capital goods used in manufacture. Because the assessee had not availed credit on any other input or capital goods, the later reversal of the furnace oil credit was regarded as equivalent to non-availment. On that basis, the exemption condition was held to be complied with, and the assessee remained entitled to the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>