<?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 (9) TMI 298 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92475</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on ACSR conductors, cables and insulators was held admissible because the goods fell within the governing eligibility principles applied by the Larger Bench, and the disallowance was set aside. The penalty for wrongful availment was sustainable in principle, but it was reduced because most of the credit had not been utilised and a substantial part had already been reversed voluntarily. The impugned order was therefore modified to allow credit on the disputed items and substantially reduce the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:10:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 298 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92475</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on ACSR conductors, cables and insulators was held admissible because the goods fell within the governing eligibility principles applied by the Larger Bench, and the disallowance was set aside. The penalty for wrongful availment was sustainable in principle, but it was reduced because most of the credit had not been utilised and a substantial part had already been reversed voluntarily. The impugned order was therefore modified to allow credit on the disputed items and substantially reduce the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>