<?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 (11) TMI 705 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108766</link>
    <description>Deemed Modvat credit on zinc waste and scrap could not be denied on the basis of a single chemical test report and presumptive surrounding circumstances. Once the sample result was challenged, re-testing ought to have been ordered, and the original report could not safely support denial, especially as the examiner had gone beyond the proper scope by indicating classification. The department also failed to establish, through supplier-side enquiry or other reliable evidence, that the inputs were zinc ash or residue rather than zinc waste and scrap. Credit was therefore not shown to be inadmissible, and the consequential demand and penalty could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:41:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 705 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108766</link>
      <description>Deemed Modvat credit on zinc waste and scrap could not be denied on the basis of a single chemical test report and presumptive surrounding circumstances. Once the sample result was challenged, re-testing ought to have been ordered, and the original report could not safely support denial, especially as the examiner had gone beyond the proper scope by indicating classification. The department also failed to establish, through supplier-side enquiry or other reliable evidence, that the inputs were zinc ash or residue rather than zinc waste and scrap. Credit was therefore not shown to be inadmissible, and the consequential demand and penalty could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108766</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>