<?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 415 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109918</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on paints could not be denied for a limited month when the same credit had been allowed for the surrounding periods. The inputs were used in the manufacture of the finished goods, and no valid basis was shown for treating one period differently from another. The denial of credit was therefore held unjustified, the Modvat credit disallowance was set aside, and relief was granted to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:49:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 415 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109918</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on paints could not be denied for a limited month when the same credit had been allowed for the surrounding periods. The inputs were used in the manufacture of the finished goods, and no valid basis was shown for treating one period differently from another. The denial of credit was therefore held unjustified, the Modvat credit disallowance was set aside, and relief was granted to the assessee.</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=109918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>