https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387095 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant, a manufacturer of Scented Tobacco/Zarda, regarding the transfer of CENVAT credit between their units. It held that the transfer was permissible under Rule 16 of the Chewing Tobacco Rules, 2010, without requiring Rule 10 permission from the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized that the initial permission granted by the ACCE was valid and could not be retrospectively withdrawn. The judgment highlighted the self-contained nature of the Chewing Tobacco Rules in governing credit transfer and the importance of adhering to specific rules and legal principles in such matters. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Mar 2020 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387095 The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant, a manufacturer of Scented Tobacco/Zarda, regarding the transfer of CENVAT credit between their units. It held that the transfer was permissible under Rule 16 of the Chewing Tobacco Rules, 2010, without requiring Rule 10 permission from the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized that the initial permission granted by the ACCE was valid and could not be retrospectively withdrawn. The judgment highlighted the self-contained nature of the Chewing Tobacco Rules in governing credit transfer and the importance of adhering to specific rules and legal principles in such matters. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387095