<?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 (4) TMI 452 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116216</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on aluminium inputs short received back from a job worker was not admissible where the waste and dross generated at the job worker&#039;s premises were not returned to the assessee as required under Rule 57F(5)(i). The claimed melting loss was rejected because the certificate produced did not satisfactorily prove the extent of loss and had been obtained only after the show cause notice. Rule 57D(1) was held inapplicable on these facts because the waste arose in the job worker&#039;s premises and had to be brought back to the assessee. The credit reversal demand was therefore upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:50:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 452 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116216</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on aluminium inputs short received back from a job worker was not admissible where the waste and dross generated at the job worker&#039;s premises were not returned to the assessee as required under Rule 57F(5)(i). The claimed melting loss was rejected because the certificate produced did not satisfactorily prove the extent of loss and had been obtained only after the show cause notice. Rule 57D(1) was held inapplicable on these facts because the waste arose in the job worker&#039;s premises and had to be brought back to the assessee. The credit reversal demand was therefore upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>