<?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 (11) TMI 11 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400256</link>
    <description>Clearance of excisable goods under the SFIS scheme against duty credit scrips is treated as a recognised mode of duty payment, not as exempted removal. On that basis, such clearances do not attract Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal also rejected reliance on the CBEC circular, noting that omission of a notification from the circular could not by itself justify treating the goods as exempted. As a result, the demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 May 2021 10:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 11 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400256</link>
      <description>Clearance of excisable goods under the SFIS scheme against duty credit scrips is treated as a recognised mode of duty payment, not as exempted removal. On that basis, such clearances do not attract Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal also rejected reliance on the CBEC circular, noting that omission of a notification from the circular could not by itself justify treating the goods as exempted. As a result, the demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>