<?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 (5) TMI 177 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85452</link>
    <description>Waste and scrap covered by Notification No. 182/84 were treated as a conditional exemption, so the department had to prove with evidence that the goods were non-duty paid before denying deemed credit. A mere allegation in the show cause notice was insufficient, and on the facts no adequate evidence was produced to establish the non-duty paid character of the scrap. The denial of Modvat credit was therefore unsustainable, and the credit claim was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:23:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 177 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85452</link>
      <description>Waste and scrap covered by Notification No. 182/84 were treated as a conditional exemption, so the department had to prove with evidence that the goods were non-duty paid before denying deemed credit. A mere allegation in the show cause notice was insufficient, and on the facts no adequate evidence was produced to establish the non-duty paid character of the scrap. The denial of Modvat credit was therefore unsustainable, and the credit claim was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>