<?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 (2) TMI 281 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88793</link>
    <description>Export incentive scheme credit reversal was to be computed by reference to the manufacturer as a whole, but the credit actually reversed had to be limited to input stage credit at the first stage of manufacture. Modvat credit taken on compounded rubber was treated as intermediate stage credit, not input stage credit, and therefore had to be reduced to the input stage level in line with the notification and handbook procedure. Because the original computation was insufficiently explained and the assessee had not been given a proper hearing, fresh quantification was required, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration after reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:18:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 281 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88793</link>
      <description>Export incentive scheme credit reversal was to be computed by reference to the manufacturer as a whole, but the credit actually reversed had to be limited to input stage credit at the first stage of manufacture. Modvat credit taken on compounded rubber was treated as intermediate stage credit, not input stage credit, and therefore had to be reduced to the input stage level in line with the notification and handbook procedure. Because the original computation was insufficiently explained and the assessee had not been given a proper hearing, fresh quantification was required, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration after reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>