<?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 (9) TMI 416 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86494</link>
    <description>For Modvat credit under Rule 57G, the declaration must specifically and accurately describe the input or final product; a generic reference to adhesive did not cover the branded product Vimsol, so credit was generally inadmissible, though credit on the specified invoice was allowed under the proviso to Rule 57G(5). The record also did not establish denial of natural justice, because the notice allowed a personal hearing and one was available at the appellate stage. Credit taken on goods returned for repairs was not required to be reversed or recovered where duty was again paid on clearance, as recovery would have resulted in double payment on the same goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:48:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 416 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86494</link>
      <description>For Modvat credit under Rule 57G, the declaration must specifically and accurately describe the input or final product; a generic reference to adhesive did not cover the branded product Vimsol, so credit was generally inadmissible, though credit on the specified invoice was allowed under the proviso to Rule 57G(5). The record also did not establish denial of natural justice, because the notice allowed a personal hearing and one was available at the appellate stage. Credit taken on goods returned for repairs was not required to be reversed or recovered where duty was again paid on clearance, as recovery would have resulted in double payment on the same goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>