<?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 (12) TMI 730 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99938</link>
    <description>Declared prices for room air-conditioners were treated as unreliable because of unexplained variations, so assessable value could be determined from investigation data and cost information to test exemption eligibility under the notification, and the undervaluation demand was sustained. The demand on split air-conditioners was also upheld because the assessee could not correlate input purchases with duty-paid clearances, and the explanation that room and split models were treated alike was rejected. Consistent with the Larger Bench view, Modvat credit attributable to inputs in stock, under process, or contained in exempted goods had to be reversed when the final product became exempt. The separate denial of credit of Rs. 4,04,443.77 was remanded for fresh consideration due to inadequate reasons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:32:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 730 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99938</link>
      <description>Declared prices for room air-conditioners were treated as unreliable because of unexplained variations, so assessable value could be determined from investigation data and cost information to test exemption eligibility under the notification, and the undervaluation demand was sustained. The demand on split air-conditioners was also upheld because the assessee could not correlate input purchases with duty-paid clearances, and the explanation that room and split models were treated alike was rejected. Consistent with the Larger Bench view, Modvat credit attributable to inputs in stock, under process, or contained in exempted goods had to be reversed when the final product became exempt. The separate denial of credit of Rs. 4,04,443.77 was remanded for fresh consideration due to inadequate reasons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>