<?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 (12) TMI 160 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351891</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on duty paid through supplementary invoices was allowable where the disputed duty related to inputs received under the concessional duty scheme and not to finished goods sold by the manufacturer. Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 applies only when the received goods are not used for the intended purpose, and the record did not show any diversion to a different use sufficient to deny credit. The show cause notice therefore proceeded on a mistaken understanding of the duty payment, and the demand was not sustainable on merits or limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 160 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351891</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on duty paid through supplementary invoices was allowable where the disputed duty related to inputs received under the concessional duty scheme and not to finished goods sold by the manufacturer. Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 applies only when the received goods are not used for the intended purpose, and the record did not show any diversion to a different use sufficient to deny credit. The show cause notice therefore proceeded on a mistaken understanding of the duty payment, and the demand was not sustainable on merits or limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>