<?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 (10) TMI 391 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114520</link>
    <description>Section 11D applies only where duty is actually collected from the buyer; on the stated facts, the sale price was composite, invoices showed nil duty, and no separate duty collection was proved, so the demand was not sustainable. Modvat credit could not be denied where the assessee had reversed credit at 8% on inputs used for exempt clearances and, after crossing the exemption limit, made dutiable clearances and became entitled to credit on duty-paid inputs thereafter; the earlier reversed amount required adjustment, subject to verification by the proper officer. With the substantive demands failing, no independent basis survived for penalty or interest, which were therefore not leviable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 13:26:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 391 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114520</link>
      <description>Section 11D applies only where duty is actually collected from the buyer; on the stated facts, the sale price was composite, invoices showed nil duty, and no separate duty collection was proved, so the demand was not sustainable. Modvat credit could not be denied where the assessee had reversed credit at 8% on inputs used for exempt clearances and, after crossing the exemption limit, made dutiable clearances and became entitled to credit on duty-paid inputs thereafter; the earlier reversed amount required adjustment, subject to verification by the proper officer. With the substantive demands failing, no independent basis survived for penalty or interest, which were therefore not leviable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114520</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>