<?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 (7) TMI 764 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363456</link>
    <description>Retrospective Rule 57CCC relief was applied to common inputs used in dutiable and exempted final products, where the assessee had not maintained separate accounts but had reversed the credit attributable to exempted goods on a proportionate basis and paid applicable interest. The Tribunal treated the amendment as covering the period in dispute and noted that the statutory reversal scheme displaced a demand for 8% of the value of exempted goods. It also referred to condonability of delay in making the amendment-related application while remedies before the Tribunal were being pursued. The demand was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2018 06:12:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 764 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363456</link>
      <description>Retrospective Rule 57CCC relief was applied to common inputs used in dutiable and exempted final products, where the assessee had not maintained separate accounts but had reversed the credit attributable to exempted goods on a proportionate basis and paid applicable interest. The Tribunal treated the amendment as covering the period in dispute and noted that the statutory reversal scheme displaced a demand for 8% of the value of exempted goods. It also referred to condonability of delay in making the amendment-related application while remedies before the Tribunal were being pursued. The demand was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>