<?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>2025 (4) TMI 758 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768844</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the assessee is entitled to claim cenvat credit on CVD paid by debiting DEPB scrips during 2010-2011 to 2011-2012. Rejecting the Revenue&#039;s position, the Tribunal held that goods cleared under DEPB scheme are duty-paid goods, not exempted goods, following precedents from HC and SC. The Tribunal found that Notification No.97/2009-Cus and Circular No.18/2006-Cus explicitly permit cenvat credit on additional customs duty paid via DEPB scrips. Additionally, the Tribunal determined that the extended period of limitation was unjustified as there was no suppression of facts by the assessee. The Commissioner&#039;s order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2025 08:35:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=814405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 758 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768844</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the assessee is entitled to claim cenvat credit on CVD paid by debiting DEPB scrips during 2010-2011 to 2011-2012. Rejecting the Revenue&#039;s position, the Tribunal held that goods cleared under DEPB scheme are duty-paid goods, not exempted goods, following precedents from HC and SC. The Tribunal found that Notification No.97/2009-Cus and Circular No.18/2006-Cus explicitly permit cenvat credit on additional customs duty paid via DEPB scrips. Additionally, the Tribunal determined that the extended period of limitation was unjustified as there was no suppression of facts by the assessee. The Commissioner&#039;s order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768844</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>