<?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 308 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92485</link>
    <description>In a Modvat dispute involving duty-free inputs received under a DEEC customs exemption notification, the tribunal treated the Board&#039;s circular as a contemporaneous exposition of the scheme and accepted that there is no direct correlation between a particular input and the final product. It noted that duty-paid and duty-free inputs were used together in manufacture and that accumulated credit on duty-paid inputs could be utilised generally against duty on final products. On that prima facie basis, the demand did not justify insisting on pre-deposit, and the recovery claim appeared excessive to the extent it went beyond the proportionate duty-free input element. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 10:36:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 308 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92485</link>
      <description>In a Modvat dispute involving duty-free inputs received under a DEEC customs exemption notification, the tribunal treated the Board&#039;s circular as a contemporaneous exposition of the scheme and accepted that there is no direct correlation between a particular input and the final product. It noted that duty-paid and duty-free inputs were used together in manufacture and that accumulated credit on duty-paid inputs could be utilised generally against duty on final products. On that prima facie basis, the demand did not justify insisting on pre-deposit, and the recovery claim appeared excessive to the extent it went beyond the proportionate duty-free input element. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92485</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>