<?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 (10) TMI 151 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82817</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on HTS wire and cement used to manufacture concrete batons, treated as packing material for PSC sleepers, was held admissible because the batons were part of the clearance of the final product and their cost formed part of the sleepers&#039; assessable value; the inputs used for that incidental packing-related manufacture were therefore within the Modvat scheme. The extended limitation period was also rejected because suppression, wilful misstatement, or other elements for invoking extended time were not proved; mere suspicion about a handwritten declaration and later inference from meeting minutes was insufficient. The demand was accordingly treated as time-barred, with consequential relief to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:14:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119962" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (10) TMI 151 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82817</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on HTS wire and cement used to manufacture concrete batons, treated as packing material for PSC sleepers, was held admissible because the batons were part of the clearance of the final product and their cost formed part of the sleepers&#039; assessable value; the inputs used for that incidental packing-related manufacture were therefore within the Modvat scheme. The extended limitation period was also rejected because suppression, wilful misstatement, or other elements for invoking extended time were not proved; mere suspicion about a handwritten declaration and later inference from meeting minutes was insufficient. The demand was accordingly treated as time-barred, with consequential relief to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>