<?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 (8) TMI 463 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364991</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the duty paid by the job worker on brass scrap was available as Cenvat Credit to the appellant. The Tribunal found that the job worker legally paid the duty as per Notification 214/86-CE and since the goods were used in the appellant&#039;s final product, the duty was cenvatable. It was clarified that the job worker had the option to choose exemption under the notification, making the duty payment permissible. The impugned order disallowing Cenvat Credit was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2018 08:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 463 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364991</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the duty paid by the job worker on brass scrap was available as Cenvat Credit to the appellant. The Tribunal found that the job worker legally paid the duty as per Notification 214/86-CE and since the goods were used in the appellant&#039;s final product, the duty was cenvatable. It was clarified that the job worker had the option to choose exemption under the notification, making the duty payment permissible. The impugned order disallowing Cenvat Credit was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364991</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>