<?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>1998 (1) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87943</link>
    <description>Non-compliance with the mandatory procedure for removing inputs on which Modvat credit had been availed disentitled the assessee to the credit and justified penalty. Aluminium rods taken on credit were sent to job workers for conversion into wire and strips without the required intimation and without proper statutory accounting. The procedural requirements under Rule 57F were treated as substantive safeguards against diversion or misuse, so the plea of actual use in manufacture and absence of mala fide intention was not accepted. The cited case law was found unhelpful, and the denial of credit and penalty were upheld on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:25:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87943</link>
      <description>Non-compliance with the mandatory procedure for removing inputs on which Modvat credit had been availed disentitled the assessee to the credit and justified penalty. Aluminium rods taken on credit were sent to job workers for conversion into wire and strips without the required intimation and without proper statutory accounting. The procedural requirements under Rule 57F were treated as substantive safeguards against diversion or misuse, so the plea of actual use in manufacture and absence of mala fide intention was not accepted. The cited case law was found unhelpful, and the denial of credit and penalty were upheld on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>