<?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>2002 (2) TMI 1079 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104746</link>
    <description>Deemed Modvat credit on iron and steel re-rollable material was confined to cases where the material was actually used in re-rolling without being melted, in line with the Board&#039;s instructions. Where first-stage re-rollers had wrongly taken credit on material not used for re-rolling and passed that ineligible credit through endorsed documents, the recipient could not claim a better entitlement than the transferor. A manufacturer lacking re-rolling facilities and using the material only by melting it in induction furnaces did not satisfy the condition for deemed credit, so the credit was not admissible and the disallowance and penalty were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:45:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 1079 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104746</link>
      <description>Deemed Modvat credit on iron and steel re-rollable material was confined to cases where the material was actually used in re-rolling without being melted, in line with the Board&#039;s instructions. Where first-stage re-rollers had wrongly taken credit on material not used for re-rolling and passed that ineligible credit through endorsed documents, the recipient could not claim a better entitlement than the transferor. A manufacturer lacking re-rolling facilities and using the material only by melting it in induction furnaces did not satisfy the condition for deemed credit, so the credit was not admissible and the disallowance and penalty were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>