<?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 (10) TMI 427 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100474</link>
    <description>Returned defective aluminium wire rods, when remelted and reprocessed into fresh final products, were treated as eligible inputs for Modvat credit in line with the settled Larger Bench view and Board clarification, so the assessee&#039;s credit claim was valid. The accompanying penalty under Rule 173Q was also unsustainable because the credit was otherwise admissible and the invoice irregularities were only technical, with the assessee acting under a bona fide belief. The assessee obtained relief on both issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:50:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 427 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100474</link>
      <description>Returned defective aluminium wire rods, when remelted and reprocessed into fresh final products, were treated as eligible inputs for Modvat credit in line with the settled Larger Bench view and Board clarification, so the assessee&#039;s credit claim was valid. The accompanying penalty under Rule 173Q was also unsustainable because the credit was otherwise admissible and the invoice irregularities were only technical, with the assessee acting under a bona fide belief. The assessee obtained relief on both issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>