<?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>1999 (3) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90313</link>
    <description>Inputs cleared from a factory after Modvat credit had been taken were required to bear duty at the rate applicable to goods deemed to have been manufactured in that factory, not merely at the rate originally credited. The rule treated such inputs, when removed for home consumption or under bond for export, as if manufactured in the same factory, so the applicable duty followed the factory-based rate on removal. A later notification invoked by the assessee did not apply to a clearance made in November 1993, and the concessional rate for small scale units was unavailable because the respondents did not qualify for that benefit. The Revenue&#039;s position was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:53:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90313</link>
      <description>Inputs cleared from a factory after Modvat credit had been taken were required to bear duty at the rate applicable to goods deemed to have been manufactured in that factory, not merely at the rate originally credited. The rule treated such inputs, when removed for home consumption or under bond for export, as if manufactured in the same factory, so the applicable duty followed the factory-based rate on removal. A later notification invoked by the assessee did not apply to a clearance made in November 1993, and the concessional rate for small scale units was unavailable because the respondents did not qualify for that benefit. The Revenue&#039;s position was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90313</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>