<?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>2004 (8) TMI 753 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288185</link>
    <description>Rule 57CC prescribed reversal of an amount linked to exempted clearances, not recovery of duty or Modvat credit. Where the assessee had not maintained separate accounts for inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods, the Tribunal held that no recovery machinery existed under the Central Excise Rules to enforce the amount demanded under Rule 57CC, and that recourse to Rule 57I, Rule 57AH or Section 11A could not support such recovery. The demand was therefore unenforceable, and the order confirming it was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2020 12:27:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=613616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 753 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288185</link>
      <description>Rule 57CC prescribed reversal of an amount linked to exempted clearances, not recovery of duty or Modvat credit. Where the assessee had not maintained separate accounts for inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods, the Tribunal held that no recovery machinery existed under the Central Excise Rules to enforce the amount demanded under Rule 57CC, and that recourse to Rule 57I, Rule 57AH or Section 11A could not support such recovery. The demand was therefore unenforceable, and the order confirming it was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>