<?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>2004 (7) TMI 514 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113982</link>
    <description>Compound rubber captively consumed in the manufacture of ADV tyres was dutiable for the period after Notification No. 152/87-C.E. was rescinded on 1-3-1994 and before Notification No. 74/94-C.E. restored the exemption on 28-3-1994; the later notification was not pressed as retrospective, so liability for the interregnum was upheld. However, while quantifying the demand, admissible Modvat credit on inputs had to be allowed and the Board&#039;s circular on valuation of captively consumed goods required profit before tax from the audited balance sheet, not gross profit. The quantum was therefore set aside for fresh recomputation and hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 16:04:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150988" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 514 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113982</link>
      <description>Compound rubber captively consumed in the manufacture of ADV tyres was dutiable for the period after Notification No. 152/87-C.E. was rescinded on 1-3-1994 and before Notification No. 74/94-C.E. restored the exemption on 28-3-1994; the later notification was not pressed as retrospective, so liability for the interregnum was upheld. However, while quantifying the demand, admissible Modvat credit on inputs had to be allowed and the Board&#039;s circular on valuation of captively consumed goods required profit before tax from the audited balance sheet, not gross profit. The quantum was therefore set aside for fresh recomputation and hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>