<?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 (8) TMI 208 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83679</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, restoring modvat credit for aluminum blanks due to their essential role in the manufacturing process, despite labeling discrepancies. However, the credit for met track additive and R.C. Reducer was denied as they did not directly match the declaration descriptions, even though they were necessary for the processes. The decision emphasized the importance of matching goods to declarations for modvat credit eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:32:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (8) TMI 208 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83679</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, restoring modvat credit for aluminum blanks due to their essential role in the manufacturing process, despite labeling discrepancies. However, the credit for met track additive and R.C. Reducer was denied as they did not directly match the declaration descriptions, even though they were necessary for the processes. The decision emphasized the importance of matching goods to declarations for modvat credit eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>