<?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 (12) TMI 336 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116889</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, allowed the appeal and set aside the disallowance of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,35,791/- for a furnace oil quantity discrepancy faced by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the discrepancy arose due to temperature changes affecting specific gravity, leading to variations in quantity during transport. The appellant&#039;s method of weighing tankers before and after unloading aligned with the quantity dispatched by Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), enabling the full Modvat credit claim. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the discrepancy noted by the stores department did not justify withholding the credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:50:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 336 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116889</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, allowed the appeal and set aside the disallowance of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,35,791/- for a furnace oil quantity discrepancy faced by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the discrepancy arose due to temperature changes affecting specific gravity, leading to variations in quantity during transport. The appellant&#039;s method of weighing tankers before and after unloading aligned with the quantity dispatched by Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), enabling the full Modvat credit claim. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the discrepancy noted by the stores department did not justify withholding the credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>