<?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 (4) TMI 291 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89032</link>
    <description>Ammonia used to purify brine for soda ash manufacture was treated as an input used in or in relation to manufacture, because purification was an essential and integral stage without which the final product could not be obtained. Captive consumption of the soda ash and the absence of a detailed use description in the MODVAT declaration did not defeat credit, since ammonia was declared as an input for the final product. On limitation, the demand could not be sustained on the extended period because the department knew the manufacturing process and credit claim, and there was no evidence of suppression or wilful misstatement. The appeal was allowed and relief followed on both credit eligibility and limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:43:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 291 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89032</link>
      <description>Ammonia used to purify brine for soda ash manufacture was treated as an input used in or in relation to manufacture, because purification was an essential and integral stage without which the final product could not be obtained. Captive consumption of the soda ash and the absence of a detailed use description in the MODVAT declaration did not defeat credit, since ammonia was declared as an input for the final product. On limitation, the demand could not be sustained on the extended period because the department knew the manufacturing process and credit claim, and there was no evidence of suppression or wilful misstatement. The appeal was allowed and relief followed on both credit eligibility and limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>