<?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 223 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337143</link>
    <description>Boilers cleared in CKD/SKD condition may still qualify for exemption where the parts together constitute a complete boiler and the notification covers the device as a whole; the exemption was therefore available on the facts described. Where the principal paid the prescribed 8% amount on exempt clearances, CENVAT credit on inputs used for the exempt boiler could not be denied on that ground, and the demand for reversal was unsustainable. Rule 4(5)(a) permits movement of inputs for job work but does not itself create an exemption from duty, so the question whether a job-worker must pay duty in such circumstances was left open for Larger Bench consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 23:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 223 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337143</link>
      <description>Boilers cleared in CKD/SKD condition may still qualify for exemption where the parts together constitute a complete boiler and the notification covers the device as a whole; the exemption was therefore available on the facts described. Where the principal paid the prescribed 8% amount on exempt clearances, CENVAT credit on inputs used for the exempt boiler could not be denied on that ground, and the demand for reversal was unsustainable. Rule 4(5)(a) permits movement of inputs for job work but does not itself create an exemption from duty, so the question whether a job-worker must pay duty in such circumstances was left open for Larger Bench consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>