<?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>1991 (3) TMI 271 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81274</link>
    <description>Duty-paid components covered by the MODVAT scheme remained eligible for credit when they were cleared outside the factory and later received back, because their notified-goods character was not lost by the temporary removal. The refusal of delivery by the consignee and the fact that ownership continued with the manufacturer supported entitlement to credit. The provisions governing brought-back goods and inputs did not exclude such goods on these facts, so MODVAT credit was admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:20:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118419" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (3) TMI 271 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81274</link>
      <description>Duty-paid components covered by the MODVAT scheme remained eligible for credit when they were cleared outside the factory and later received back, because their notified-goods character was not lost by the temporary removal. The refusal of delivery by the consignee and the fact that ownership continued with the manufacturer supported entitlement to credit. The provisions governing brought-back goods and inputs did not exclude such goods on these facts, so MODVAT credit was admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>