<?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>2006 (8) TMI 380 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118630</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on free replacement goods depends on whether the original consignment was actually used or was defective and replaced before use. Credit on both consignments would constitute impermissible double credit if the original goods were replaced as defective. As no conclusive finding addressed the use of the original goods, the credit issue required fresh adjudication. Rule 173Q required penalty of three times the value of excisable goods or the prescribed minimum, whichever was greater; reduction below that minimum without reasons was contrary to the rule. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of both credit and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:40:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155627" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 380 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118630</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on free replacement goods depends on whether the original consignment was actually used or was defective and replaced before use. Credit on both consignments would constitute impermissible double credit if the original goods were replaced as defective. As no conclusive finding addressed the use of the original goods, the credit issue required fresh adjudication. Rule 173Q required penalty of three times the value of excisable goods or the prescribed minimum, whichever was greater; reduction below that minimum without reasons was contrary to the rule. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of both credit and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>