Sponsored

86 exemption

CA Saurabh Chokhra 13 Jan 2016 8,559 Views 1 comment Print Excise Duty | Judiciary

Case Law Details

Case Name : Precision Metals Vs CCEx (CESTAT Mumbai)

Related Assessment Year :

Courts : All CESTAT CESTAT Mumbai

Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.

Sponsored

Job worker enjoying exemption under Notification No. 214/86 not liable to reverse Cenvat credit as the duty on job worked goods ultimately paid by principal manufacturer

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 42/MS (31)/Commr/Rgd/ 06-07 dated 29.03.2007 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Raigad)

Brief of the case :

become a Premium member

Sponsored

Tags:

Kindly Refer to Privacy Policy & Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.

Author Bio

Name: CA Saurabh Chokhra

Qualification: CA in Job / Business

Company: N/A

Location: Hyderabad, Telangana, IN

Member Since: 19 Aug 2018 | Total Posts: 243

View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Reversal of ITC attributable exempt supplies under Rule 42/43 of CGST Rules, 2017 ITC eligibility on works contract and construction activities Functional teams in a corporate structure Use of SUMIF function in excel Amendments made in GST laws- a conversation between CFO & Indirect Tax Manager View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

One Comment

Ajanish says:

Any relevant data or information connected to work orders executed under FORM57 F4 with respect to Notification no.214/86. Please advice .

Reply

July 26, 2022 at 9:32 am