<?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>1990 (12) TMI 241 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81187</link>
    <description>MODVAT credit was held admissible where the declaration described the input as &quot;Molybdenum&quot; but the goods received were Molybdenum scrap or wire scrap, because both fell within the same Chapter 81 and the notification operated on a chapter-heading basis. The declaration mentioned the relevant chapter heading, and departmental clarification supported deciding such cases on merits where broad descriptions and chapter details were filed and the inputs were shown to have been received and used in manufacture. As the Revenue did not dispute actual use of the inputs, the description was treated as sufficient compliance with the rule requirements, and disallowance of credit was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:55:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118332" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 241 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81187</link>
      <description>MODVAT credit was held admissible where the declaration described the input as &quot;Molybdenum&quot; but the goods received were Molybdenum scrap or wire scrap, because both fell within the same Chapter 81 and the notification operated on a chapter-heading basis. The declaration mentioned the relevant chapter heading, and departmental clarification supported deciding such cases on merits where broad descriptions and chapter details were filed and the inputs were shown to have been received and used in manufacture. As the Revenue did not dispute actual use of the inputs, the description was treated as sufficient compliance with the rule requirements, and disallowance of credit was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81187</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>