<?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 (8) TMI 318 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86479</link>
    <description>Unusable stainless ingots and flats were treated as waste and scrap for Modvat purposes because Section Note 6(a) of Section XV covers metal goods definitely not suitable as such due to breakage, wear or other reasons. The credit declaration could not be rejected merely because the goods were described under a different tariff heading, where their actual character was scrap fit only for metal retrieval. Deemed credit on aluminium and copper scrap also could not be denied simply because the goods were not expressly named in the Government order, especially when the department failed to prove they were non-duty-paid. The credit disallowance on both counts was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 318 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86479</link>
      <description>Unusable stainless ingots and flats were treated as waste and scrap for Modvat purposes because Section Note 6(a) of Section XV covers metal goods definitely not suitable as such due to breakage, wear or other reasons. The credit declaration could not be rejected merely because the goods were described under a different tariff heading, where their actual character was scrap fit only for metal retrieval. Deemed credit on aluminium and copper scrap also could not be denied simply because the goods were not expressly named in the Government order, especially when the department failed to prove they were non-duty-paid. The credit disallowance on both counts was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>