<?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 (9) TMI 615 - CESTAT, bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110506</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on capital goods was denied because the goods were classified at the supplier&#039;s end under Heading 8422.10, which made them ineligible under Rule 57Q. The receiving Assistant Commissioner had no authority to alter the manufacturer&#039;s classification for credit purposes, as classification rests with the excise authority having jurisdiction over the manufacturer. On that basis, the denial of credit was upheld and the assessee&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:02:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147522" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 615 - CESTAT, bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110506</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on capital goods was denied because the goods were classified at the supplier&#039;s end under Heading 8422.10, which made them ineligible under Rule 57Q. The receiving Assistant Commissioner had no authority to alter the manufacturer&#039;s classification for credit purposes, as classification rests with the excise authority having jurisdiction over the manufacturer. On that basis, the denial of credit was upheld and the assessee&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110506</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>