<?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>1993 (3) TMI 216 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82527</link>
    <description>MODVAT credit on aluminium powder was treated as admissible where the Rule 57G declaration had been filed and acknowledged, an approved gate pass existed, and there was no evidence supporting the department&#039;s objection; the extended limitation period was also found unjustified because the department knew of the credit through RT 12 scrutiny long before the notice, so the demand failed. On imported artificial wax, credit was allowed on the balance because Rule 57G treated the Bill of Entry as the relevant document and the endorsement objection did not apply where the importer was also the manufacturer. However, the unexplained excess credit of Rs. 300 was not admissible and remained recoverable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:52:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119672" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (3) TMI 216 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82527</link>
      <description>MODVAT credit on aluminium powder was treated as admissible where the Rule 57G declaration had been filed and acknowledged, an approved gate pass existed, and there was no evidence supporting the department&#039;s objection; the extended limitation period was also found unjustified because the department knew of the credit through RT 12 scrutiny long before the notice, so the demand failed. On imported artificial wax, credit was allowed on the balance because Rule 57G treated the Bill of Entry as the relevant document and the endorsement objection did not apply where the importer was also the manufacturer. However, the unexplained excess credit of Rs. 300 was not admissible and remained recoverable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>