<?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 (6) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93143</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on inputs used to repair defective transformers cleared without payment of duty was treated as reversible where the statutory records did not properly disclose the quantity of inputs consumed or the credit availed. The article notes that a bare plea that warranty or repair costs were reflected in assessable value was not supported by evidence, so retention of credit was not accepted on the stated record. It also explains that blank or incomplete register entries, together with non-disclosure of duty-free clearances, could support suppression and intent to evade duty, justifying use of the extended limitation period. The resulting demand and penalty were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:59:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93143</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on inputs used to repair defective transformers cleared without payment of duty was treated as reversible where the statutory records did not properly disclose the quantity of inputs consumed or the credit availed. The article notes that a bare plea that warranty or repair costs were reflected in assessable value was not supported by evidence, so retention of credit was not accepted on the stated record. It also explains that blank or incomplete register entries, together with non-disclosure of duty-free clearances, could support suppression and intent to evade duty, justifying use of the extended limitation period. The resulting demand and penalty were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>