<?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>2020 (1) TMI 895 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391282</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was held admissible for Special Additional Duty debited under the Target Plus scheme because the governing customs notification permitted drawback or CENVAT credit of additional duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The issue was treated as scheme-specific, and earlier DEPB-related rulings were distinguished. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court&#039;s view on the Target Plus scheme, the Tribunal accepted that the duty paid by debit through the scheme fell within the notification&#039;s credit mechanism. The impugned order allowing credit was sustained and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:08:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 895 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391282</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was held admissible for Special Additional Duty debited under the Target Plus scheme because the governing customs notification permitted drawback or CENVAT credit of additional duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The issue was treated as scheme-specific, and earlier DEPB-related rulings were distinguished. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court&#039;s view on the Target Plus scheme, the Tribunal accepted that the duty paid by debit through the scheme fell within the notification&#039;s credit mechanism. The impugned order allowing credit was sustained and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>