<?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>2018 (1) TMI 1210 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354474</link>
    <description>A small-scale re-rolling unit eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was entitled to deemed credit under the Government of India&#039;s order dated 1-3-1994 because that order allowed credit on ingots and re-rollable materials in stock on or after 1-4-1994 and expressly dispensed with duty-paying documents. The Bombay HC held that a trade notice could not add a restrictive clearances ceiling inconsistent with the deemed credit order. As the assessee&#039;s aggregate clearances were below the prescribed exemption limit and the statutory conditions were satisfied, denial of credit solely because clearances crossed the lower threshold was unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:48:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1210 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354474</link>
      <description>A small-scale re-rolling unit eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was entitled to deemed credit under the Government of India&#039;s order dated 1-3-1994 because that order allowed credit on ingots and re-rollable materials in stock on or after 1-4-1994 and expressly dispensed with duty-paying documents. The Bombay HC held that a trade notice could not add a restrictive clearances ceiling inconsistent with the deemed credit order. As the assessee&#039;s aggregate clearances were below the prescribed exemption limit and the statutory conditions were satisfied, denial of credit solely because clearances crossed the lower threshold was unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>