<?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>1996 (3) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85095</link>
    <description>The extended limitation period under central excise law could not be invoked because there was no allegation of suppression, misdeclaration, or misstatement; the demand was therefore time-barred beyond six months, though the demand within six months remained sustainable. Hegatreat and Hegafilm, used as corrosion inhibitors in cooling water and steam generation systems, were not eligible for MODVAT credit because they lacked a direct nexus with the manufacture of synthetic rubber and were used only for machinery protection, not as inputs used in or in relation to manufacture. One appeal succeeded only on limitation and required recomputation, while the other failed on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:09:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85095</link>
      <description>The extended limitation period under central excise law could not be invoked because there was no allegation of suppression, misdeclaration, or misstatement; the demand was therefore time-barred beyond six months, though the demand within six months remained sustainable. Hegatreat and Hegafilm, used as corrosion inhibitors in cooling water and steam generation systems, were not eligible for MODVAT credit because they lacked a direct nexus with the manufacture of synthetic rubber and were used only for machinery protection, not as inputs used in or in relation to manufacture. One appeal succeeded only on limitation and required recomputation, while the other failed on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>