<?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 720 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97673</link>
    <description>Purchased iron and steel waste and scrap used only after remelting for manufacture of stainless steel ingots was treated as &quot;waste and scrap&quot; under Note 6(a) to Section XV of the Central Excise Tariff Act. On that basis, the article states that benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was not available and deemed Modvat credit could also be denied, because the inputs fell within the relevant waste-and-scrap definition. The absence of evidence to displace the lower authorities&#039; finding was material, and the alleged denial of hearing caused no prejudice since the matter had already been heard in appeal. The exemption claim and credit claim were therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:19:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 720 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97673</link>
      <description>Purchased iron and steel waste and scrap used only after remelting for manufacture of stainless steel ingots was treated as &quot;waste and scrap&quot; under Note 6(a) to Section XV of the Central Excise Tariff Act. On that basis, the article states that benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was not available and deemed Modvat credit could also be denied, because the inputs fell within the relevant waste-and-scrap definition. The absence of evidence to displace the lower authorities&#039; finding was material, and the alleged denial of hearing caused no prejudice since the matter had already been heard in appeal. The exemption claim and credit claim were therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97673</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>