<?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 (7) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89798</link>
    <description>Deemed Modvat credit under the 01-03-1994 Ministry of Finance order could not be denied merely because the inputs were scrap said to be clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. The order was read as containing only its express conditions: the re-rollable materials had to be used without melting, purchased from outside, and in stock on or after 01-04-1994. Rule 57G&#039;s second proviso permitted denial only for stocks lying in a factory, customs area, or warehouse, and no such excluded location was shown. As the order itself did not add a non-duty-paid restriction, the credit was held admissible and the contrary view was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:27:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89798</link>
      <description>Deemed Modvat credit under the 01-03-1994 Ministry of Finance order could not be denied merely because the inputs were scrap said to be clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. The order was read as containing only its express conditions: the re-rollable materials had to be used without melting, purchased from outside, and in stock on or after 01-04-1994. Rule 57G&#039;s second proviso permitted denial only for stocks lying in a factory, customs area, or warehouse, and no such excluded location was shown. As the order itself did not add a non-duty-paid restriction, the credit was held admissible and the contrary view was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>