<?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>2001 (5) TMI 487 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97853</link>
    <description>Goods classifiable under Chapter 84 were treated as capital goods for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q unless expressly excluded, and their use with chlorine cylinders did not defeat eligibility based on their own tariff classification. On that basis, valves for chlorine cylinders falling under Heading 8481.80 qualified for credit. Once that principal eligibility issue was resolved in favour of the assessee, the related denial of restoration also failed, because the re-credit claim was only consequential to the disputed reversal. The reversed amount was therefore allowable to be restored, and the connected demand and denial of re-credit did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 487 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97853</link>
      <description>Goods classifiable under Chapter 84 were treated as capital goods for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q unless expressly excluded, and their use with chlorine cylinders did not defeat eligibility based on their own tariff classification. On that basis, valves for chlorine cylinders falling under Heading 8481.80 qualified for credit. Once that principal eligibility issue was resolved in favour of the assessee, the related denial of restoration also failed, because the re-credit claim was only consequential to the disputed reversal. The reversed amount was therefore allowable to be restored, and the connected demand and denial of re-credit did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>