<?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>2024 (3) TMI 66 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450285</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit reversal on tools and moulds. The appellant had purchased tools and moulds for manufacturing excisable automobile components but issued VAT invoices showing them as sold to a company. The department demanded CENVAT credit reversal under Rule 3(5A)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. CESTAT held that CENVAT credit reversal is required only upon physical removal of capital goods. Since the department failed to prove physical removal and the tools remained in the appellant&#039;s factory for manufacturing excisable goods, the demand was unjustified. The original order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2024 07:22:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745461" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 66 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450285</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit reversal on tools and moulds. The appellant had purchased tools and moulds for manufacturing excisable automobile components but issued VAT invoices showing them as sold to a company. The department demanded CENVAT credit reversal under Rule 3(5A)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. CESTAT held that CENVAT credit reversal is required only upon physical removal of capital goods. Since the department failed to prove physical removal and the tools remained in the appellant&#039;s factory for manufacturing excisable goods, the demand was unjustified. The original order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>