<?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 (3) TMI 323 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54326</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit is not admissible on inputs used for exempt final products once exemption operates, including inputs in stock, inputs consumed in work-in-process, and inputs contained in finished goods awaiting clearance. The Tribunal applied the settled position that credit cannot be retained on such inputs after the final product becomes exempt, and sustained denial of credit in favour of the Revenue. It also recognised that deliberate wrongful availment of ineligible credit attracts penalty; prior payment before the show cause notice may affect only the quantum, not the existence of penal liability. A reduced penalty was therefore sustained against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:42:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 323 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54326</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit is not admissible on inputs used for exempt final products once exemption operates, including inputs in stock, inputs consumed in work-in-process, and inputs contained in finished goods awaiting clearance. The Tribunal applied the settled position that credit cannot be retained on such inputs after the final product becomes exempt, and sustained denial of credit in favour of the Revenue. It also recognised that deliberate wrongful availment of ineligible credit attracts penalty; prior payment before the show cause notice may affect only the quantum, not the existence of penal liability. A reduced penalty was therefore sustained against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>