<?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 (11) TMI 325 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117054</link>
    <description>Cenvat/Modvat credit on copper concentrate test samples is admissible only when documentary evidence shows that the samples were used in or in relation to manufacture. The Tribunal found no proof that the tested samples formed part of the manufacturing process, as the asserted testing necessity was not supported by the manufacturing write-up or records showing movement from the laboratory to the plant, so credit was denied. On penalty, the Tribunal considered the contravention limited to a negligible quantity and noted voluntary reversal of credit on the larger portion of samples tested outside the factory, so the penalty was reduced as disproportionate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:11:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154052" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 325 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117054</link>
      <description>Cenvat/Modvat credit on copper concentrate test samples is admissible only when documentary evidence shows that the samples were used in or in relation to manufacture. The Tribunal found no proof that the tested samples formed part of the manufacturing process, as the asserted testing necessity was not supported by the manufacturing write-up or records showing movement from the laboratory to the plant, so credit was denied. On penalty, the Tribunal considered the contravention limited to a negligible quantity and noted voluntary reversal of credit on the larger portion of samples tested outside the factory, so the penalty was reduced as disproportionate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>