<?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>2008 (9) TMI 396 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48511</link>
    <description>Credit was admissible on inputs lying in stock on 1 April 2000 where those inputs were traceable to units operating under the Compounded Levy Scheme, and the Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld on that basis. The entitlement was supported by Board&#039;s Circular No. 522/2000 dated 31 March 2000, and the credit taken was not shown to be incorrect. On those facts, no legal infirmity was found in allowing the credit, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:34:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 396 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48511</link>
      <description>Credit was admissible on inputs lying in stock on 1 April 2000 where those inputs were traceable to units operating under the Compounded Levy Scheme, and the Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld on that basis. The entitlement was supported by Board&#039;s Circular No. 522/2000 dated 31 March 2000, and the credit taken was not shown to be incorrect. On those facts, no legal infirmity was found in allowing the credit, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>