<?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>2000 (11) TMI 444 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95124</link>
    <description>A prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit was found in relation to disputed Modvat credit and penalty, so recovery was stayed at the interim stage. The alleged mismatch in photo polymer films was treated as only a minor variation between the declared input and the goods received, and was not taken as a basis to deny credit for pre-deposit purposes. Alumina ceramic substrate was similarly regarded as substantially matching the declared item. The unchallenged limitation submission, together with the fact that the demand was worked out from statutory documents, supported dispensing with pre-deposit of the disputed amounts, while the admitted amount was directed to be deposited.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 11:05:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 444 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95124</link>
      <description>A prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit was found in relation to disputed Modvat credit and penalty, so recovery was stayed at the interim stage. The alleged mismatch in photo polymer films was treated as only a minor variation between the declared input and the goods received, and was not taken as a basis to deny credit for pre-deposit purposes. Alumina ceramic substrate was similarly regarded as substantially matching the declared item. The unchallenged limitation submission, together with the fact that the demand was worked out from statutory documents, supported dispensing with pre-deposit of the disputed amounts, while the admitted amount was directed to be deposited.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95124</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>