<?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 (12) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82966</link>
    <description>Grinding wheels and grinding belts used in manufacturing hand tools were held not to qualify as Modvat inputs under Rule 57A because they formed part of the grinding machines and operated as manufacturing apparatus rather than as raw materials or ingredients used in the manufacturing process. The majority applied the distinction between inputs and equipment and upheld disallowance of credit. On limitation, wrongful declaration of the items as raw materials, despite prior departmental notice, was treated as misdeclaration and suppression sufficient to justify invocation of the extended period. The demand was therefore held not to be time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:18:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (12) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82966</link>
      <description>Grinding wheels and grinding belts used in manufacturing hand tools were held not to qualify as Modvat inputs under Rule 57A because they formed part of the grinding machines and operated as manufacturing apparatus rather than as raw materials or ingredients used in the manufacturing process. The majority applied the distinction between inputs and equipment and upheld disallowance of credit. On limitation, wrongful declaration of the items as raw materials, despite prior departmental notice, was treated as misdeclaration and suppression sufficient to justify invocation of the extended period. The demand was therefore held not to be time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>