<?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 (3) TMI 637 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115977</link>
    <description>Deemed Modvat credit on scrap and ship-breaking material was admissible for the period governed by the 1-4-1994 circular, because that regime permitted credit at the prescribed rate without duty-paying documents. The objection based solely on absence of such documents could not stand, and the principal credit demand failed. Once the credit was accepted, the connected interest and demand founded on inadmissibility also fell away. The separate small duty amounts and certain penalties for other proved contraventions were left intact, while the Section 11AC penalty was unsustainable because that provision was not in force during the relevant period. Confiscation was maintained, but the redemption fine was reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:53:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 637 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115977</link>
      <description>Deemed Modvat credit on scrap and ship-breaking material was admissible for the period governed by the 1-4-1994 circular, because that regime permitted credit at the prescribed rate without duty-paying documents. The objection based solely on absence of such documents could not stand, and the principal credit demand failed. Once the credit was accepted, the connected interest and demand founded on inadmissibility also fell away. The separate small duty amounts and certain penalties for other proved contraventions were left intact, while the Section 11AC penalty was unsustainable because that provision was not in force during the relevant period. Confiscation was maintained, but the redemption fine was reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>