<?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 (2) TMI 688 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115935</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on MS defective flat bars, MS defective angles and short-length cuttings received from re-rollers was examined in the context of a valuation or classification objection treated by the Revenue as scrap. The stated principle is that, where the department doubts the supplier-side valuation or classification under the credit scheme, it should first use the proper correction mechanism under the notification and then apply the relevant credit provisions. Direct recovery by invoking Rule 57-I on those facts was described as unsustainable, and the reported conclusion was that the credit claim succeeded while the demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:54:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 688 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115935</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on MS defective flat bars, MS defective angles and short-length cuttings received from re-rollers was examined in the context of a valuation or classification objection treated by the Revenue as scrap. The stated principle is that, where the department doubts the supplier-side valuation or classification under the credit scheme, it should first use the proper correction mechanism under the notification and then apply the relevant credit provisions. Direct recovery by invoking Rule 57-I on those facts was described as unsustainable, and the reported conclusion was that the credit claim succeeded while the demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>