<?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 667 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100088</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was available on duty paid inputs used in clearing the final product because the assessable value computation and exclusion of duty components under Section 4 had already been settled by a Larger Bench and subsequent decisions. The Tribunal treated the issue as no longer res integra and held that the Commissioner&#039;s allowance of credit accorded with the Modvat scheme and the prevailing legal position. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore lacked merit and failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:55:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 667 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100088</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was available on duty paid inputs used in clearing the final product because the assessable value computation and exclusion of duty components under Section 4 had already been settled by a Larger Bench and subsequent decisions. The Tribunal treated the issue as no longer res integra and held that the Commissioner&#039;s allowance of credit accorded with the Modvat scheme and the prevailing legal position. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore lacked merit and failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>