<?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>2003 (10) TMI 244 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52629</link>
    <description>Transitional Cenvat credit was held unavailable for glass bottles and plastic crates lying in stock, in finished goods, or in process on 1-4-2000, because the new scheme allowed credit only for inputs received in the factory on or after that date or for credit already earned and left unutilised under the earlier regime. The claimed benefit could not be introduced by interpretation where the rules did not expressly preserve it, so the duty demand and interest were sustained. Personal penalty under Section 11AC was set aside because the credit claim arose from a bona fide interpretation of the Board&#039;s circular and the record did not show mala fide intent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:55:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91106" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 244 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52629</link>
      <description>Transitional Cenvat credit was held unavailable for glass bottles and plastic crates lying in stock, in finished goods, or in process on 1-4-2000, because the new scheme allowed credit only for inputs received in the factory on or after that date or for credit already earned and left unutilised under the earlier regime. The claimed benefit could not be introduced by interpretation where the rules did not expressly preserve it, so the duty demand and interest were sustained. Personal penalty under Section 11AC was set aside because the credit claim arose from a bona fide interpretation of the Board&#039;s circular and the record did not show mala fide intent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52629</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>