<?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 (3) TMI 685 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104783</link>
    <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because inputs sent to a job worker under Rule 57F(2) returned in reduced quantity due to burning loss. The Tribunal noted that the same assessee&#039;s identical dispute had already been decided in its favour in earlier orders, where denial of credit on this ground had been set aside. Following that settled position, the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order allowing the credit was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 10:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 685 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104783</link>
      <description>Modvat credit could not be denied merely because inputs sent to a job worker under Rule 57F(2) returned in reduced quantity due to burning loss. The Tribunal noted that the same assessee&#039;s identical dispute had already been decided in its favour in earlier orders, where denial of credit on this ground had been set aside. Following that settled position, the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order allowing the credit was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>