<?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 (7) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85508</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was treated as allowable where ribbed bars were covered by the existing classification list, RT 12 returns and declaration, so no separate description was needed on the facts. Credit was denied for undeclared scrap, IOR rails and material removed without the required permission because scrap required specific declaration and the record showed non-compliance with the declaration and removal conditions. Burning losses were treated as technologically unavoidable waste under Rule 57D, so credit could not be denied merely because the input did not remain fully in the final product. The penalty was reduced because partial relief on credit justified interference with its quantum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 15:14:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85508</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was treated as allowable where ribbed bars were covered by the existing classification list, RT 12 returns and declaration, so no separate description was needed on the facts. Credit was denied for undeclared scrap, IOR rails and material removed without the required permission because scrap required specific declaration and the record showed non-compliance with the declaration and removal conditions. Burning losses were treated as technologically unavoidable waste under Rule 57D, so credit could not be denied merely because the input did not remain fully in the final product. The penalty was reduced because partial relief on credit justified interference with its quantum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>