<?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>1996 (10) TMI 431 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113637</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on goods returned from consignees for re-processing or reduction in thickness was denied where the assessee failed to prove that the returned goods were received under a genuine job work arrangement or for eligible further processing. Although duty-paid gate passes and consignee letters seeking thickness reduction were produced, the record did not show payment for processing or other terms of the arrangement. The goods were also not entered in RG 23A Part I or the raw material register, and no material established that they qualified as admissible inputs for Modvat purposes. Credit was therefore held inadmissible and the denial was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 06 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 13:01:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 431 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113637</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on goods returned from consignees for re-processing or reduction in thickness was denied where the assessee failed to prove that the returned goods were received under a genuine job work arrangement or for eligible further processing. Although duty-paid gate passes and consignee letters seeking thickness reduction were produced, the record did not show payment for processing or other terms of the arrangement. The goods were also not entered in RG 23A Part I or the raw material register, and no material established that they qualified as admissible inputs for Modvat purposes. Credit was therefore held inadmissible and the denial was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 06 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>