<?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 (11) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47273</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit validly taken on Light Diesel Oil received in the factory before 01.03.2003 could not be withdrawn by a later amendment excluding that item from the definition of input. Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 allowed credit on eligible inputs, and Rule 4(1) permitted credit to be taken immediately on receipt in the factory; once credit was lawfully earned under the then-existing definition, it crystallised as a vested right. The subsequent amendment by Notification No. 13/2003-C.E. (N.T.) was not retrospective, and a circular could not require reversal of credit on pre-amendment stock. The challenge to the notice and circular therefore succeeded, and the assessee could retain the credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:42:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85792" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47273</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit validly taken on Light Diesel Oil received in the factory before 01.03.2003 could not be withdrawn by a later amendment excluding that item from the definition of input. Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 allowed credit on eligible inputs, and Rule 4(1) permitted credit to be taken immediately on receipt in the factory; once credit was lawfully earned under the then-existing definition, it crystallised as a vested right. The subsequent amendment by Notification No. 13/2003-C.E. (N.T.) was not retrospective, and a circular could not require reversal of credit on pre-amendment stock. The challenge to the notice and circular therefore succeeded, and the assessee could retain the credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47273</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>