<?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>1997 (3) TMI 529 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104352</link>
    <description>Inputs used for manufacture of plastic film remained duty-paid for exemption purposes even where Modvat credit had been availed. The analysis states that goods cleared at nil rate under an exemption notification are treated as goods cleared after payment of duty at the appropriate rate, and that Modvat credit only reimburses duty already paid on the input without changing its duty-paid character. The exemption condition requiring manufacture from duty-paid goods was therefore satisfied, and the demand on the final product was not sustainable. A contrary coordinate bench view was not followed because the Larger Bench approach treated Modvat as reimbursement, not non-payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:30:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 529 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104352</link>
      <description>Inputs used for manufacture of plastic film remained duty-paid for exemption purposes even where Modvat credit had been availed. The analysis states that goods cleared at nil rate under an exemption notification are treated as goods cleared after payment of duty at the appropriate rate, and that Modvat credit only reimburses duty already paid on the input without changing its duty-paid character. The exemption condition requiring manufacture from duty-paid goods was therefore satisfied, and the demand on the final product was not sustainable. A contrary coordinate bench view was not followed because the Larger Bench approach treated Modvat as reimbursement, not non-payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104352</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>