<?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>2005 (2) TMI 381 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54323</link>
    <description>Credit transfer on amalgamation was permitted under Rule 57F(7), later Rule 57F(20), of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s objection that the transfer should fail because the physical stock of inputs, work-in-progress and finished goods did not the credit balance in the books. Treating the issue as no longer res integra, it followed its earlier view and noted that Board Circular No. 1/93 dated 5-1-1993 applied only to the period before Rule 57F(20) came into force on 1-3-1997. The assessee was therefore entitled to the credit transfer and denial on the stated ground was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:37:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92800" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 381 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54323</link>
      <description>Credit transfer on amalgamation was permitted under Rule 57F(7), later Rule 57F(20), of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s objection that the transfer should fail because the physical stock of inputs, work-in-progress and finished goods did not the credit balance in the books. Treating the issue as no longer res integra, it followed its earlier view and noted that Board Circular No. 1/93 dated 5-1-1993 applied only to the period before Rule 57F(20) came into force on 1-3-1997. The assessee was therefore entitled to the credit transfer and denial on the stated ground was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>