<?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>2003 (8) TMI 394 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109627</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on HDPE sacks used to pack leather cloth could not be denied merely because the sacks were treated as secondary packing. The show cause notice alleged only that the packing was secondary and not used in or in relation to manufacture; it did not raise any objection based on exclusion of packing cost from assessable value or any specific material-based disqualification. Since an assessee must meet only the case made in the notice, the adjudicating authority could not sustain denial on a new ground not pleaded. On the ground actually stated, the distinction between secondary and other packing did not justify denial, and the credit disallowance was set aside to the extent disputed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:17:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 394 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109627</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on HDPE sacks used to pack leather cloth could not be denied merely because the sacks were treated as secondary packing. The show cause notice alleged only that the packing was secondary and not used in or in relation to manufacture; it did not raise any objection based on exclusion of packing cost from assessable value or any specific material-based disqualification. Since an assessee must meet only the case made in the notice, the adjudicating authority could not sustain denial on a new ground not pleaded. On the ground actually stated, the distinction between secondary and other packing did not justify denial, and the credit disallowance was set aside to the extent disputed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>