<?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 (10) TMI 468 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110333</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on explosives used outside the factory was tested against the amended definition of &quot;input&quot;, which after 1-7-2000 required use in the factory. The pre-amendment position allowed credit where explosives were used to manufacture an intermediate product consumed in the final product, but that earlier ruling did not fully govern the amended regime on the prima facie facts. Since the order-in-appeal recorded reasons for disallowing credit and the dispute turned on interpretation of Rule 57A and the amended definition, total waiver of pre-deposit was not justified. Partial waiver was granted instead, with deposit directed and recovery stayed for the balance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:24:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147349" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 468 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110333</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on explosives used outside the factory was tested against the amended definition of &quot;input&quot;, which after 1-7-2000 required use in the factory. The pre-amendment position allowed credit where explosives were used to manufacture an intermediate product consumed in the final product, but that earlier ruling did not fully govern the amended regime on the prima facie facts. Since the order-in-appeal recorded reasons for disallowing credit and the dispute turned on interpretation of Rule 57A and the amended definition, total waiver of pre-deposit was not justified. Partial waiver was granted instead, with deposit directed and recovery stayed for the balance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110333</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>