<?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>2005 (1) TMI 483 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115065</link>
    <description>Modvat credit should not be denied where inputs are sent for job work and galvanisation, the final product is cleared on payment of duty, and no misuse of inputs is shown. Procedural lapses in complying with job-work movement or accounting requirements are treated as procedural infringements and do not, by themselves, sustain denial of credit, penalty or interest when duty has been discharged on the final product. The text also notes that the demand was vulnerable on limitation, making the extended-period recovery unsustainable. The order confirming recovery, penalty and interest was therefore set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 15:02:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152064" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 483 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115065</link>
      <description>Modvat credit should not be denied where inputs are sent for job work and galvanisation, the final product is cleared on payment of duty, and no misuse of inputs is shown. Procedural lapses in complying with job-work movement or accounting requirements are treated as procedural infringements and do not, by themselves, sustain denial of credit, penalty or interest when duty has been discharged on the final product. The text also notes that the demand was vulnerable on limitation, making the extended-period recovery unsustainable. The order confirming recovery, penalty and interest was therefore set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>