<?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 (7) TMI 392 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115505</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was held admissible on duty-paid goods received back only for repair and reconditioning after their earlier clearance on payment of duty. The reasoning was that credit had been taken only to the extent of duty actually paid, and denying it would have caused double levy on the same goods. The conflicting Tribunal views were resolved in favour of allowing credit, and the order-in-appeal was set aside while the order-in-original was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 14:57:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 392 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115505</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was held admissible on duty-paid goods received back only for repair and reconditioning after their earlier clearance on payment of duty. The reasoning was that credit had been taken only to the extent of duty actually paid, and denying it would have caused double levy on the same goods. The conflicting Tribunal views were resolved in favour of allowing credit, and the order-in-appeal was set aside while the order-in-original was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>