<?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 (3) TMI 1208 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340705</link>
    <description>An SSI unit manufacturing both own goods and duty-paid branded goods could still claim Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. exemption for its own clearances, because third-party branded clearances were treated as outside the exemption scheme and subject to normal excise treatment. Credit on inputs used for the dutiable branded goods was therefore not inconsistent with SSI eligibility for the unit&#039;s own products. The only qualification was factual verification that no input credit had been retained in relation to exempt clearances, with any attributable reversal left to the jurisdictional officer. On that basis, the demand and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:04:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=462668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1208 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340705</link>
      <description>An SSI unit manufacturing both own goods and duty-paid branded goods could still claim Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. exemption for its own clearances, because third-party branded clearances were treated as outside the exemption scheme and subject to normal excise treatment. Credit on inputs used for the dutiable branded goods was therefore not inconsistent with SSI eligibility for the unit&#039;s own products. The only qualification was factual verification that no input credit had been retained in relation to exempt clearances, with any attributable reversal left to the jurisdictional officer. On that basis, the demand and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340705</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>