<?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 (12) TMI 1170 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372401</link>
    <description>Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 could not be applied without first determining whether lean gas was a by-product or a final product, because the availability of the exclusion turned on that characterisation. The notices, apart from the September 1998 notice, specifically disputed the assessee&#039;s claim that lean gas was a by-product, yet that factual and legal issue had not been examined. As the existing record did not permit a proper determination of the levy, the confirmed liability could not be sustained and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the case remanded to the original authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2018 07:18:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=548483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1170 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372401</link>
      <description>Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 could not be applied without first determining whether lean gas was a by-product or a final product, because the availability of the exclusion turned on that characterisation. The notices, apart from the September 1998 notice, specifically disputed the assessee&#039;s claim that lean gas was a by-product, yet that factual and legal issue had not been examined. As the existing record did not permit a proper determination of the levy, the confirmed liability could not be sustained and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the case remanded to the original authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>