<?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 (4) TMI 569 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97505</link>
    <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57A was confined to duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to manufacture, and returned finished goods later reprocessed did not qualify as declared inputs under Rule 57G. Because the reprocessing did not result in a new and distinct product, the credit scheme could not be used to reimburse duty on returned materials or to avoid double payment of duty. Credit was therefore inadmissible and its denial was upheld in favour of Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:34:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 569 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97505</link>
      <description>Modvat credit under Rule 57A was confined to duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to manufacture, and returned finished goods later reprocessed did not qualify as declared inputs under Rule 57G. Because the reprocessing did not result in a new and distinct product, the credit scheme could not be used to reimburse duty on returned materials or to avoid double payment of duty. Credit was therefore inadmissible and its denial was upheld in favour of Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>