<?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>2004 (5) TMI 526 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118681</link>
    <description>Modvat credit remained admissible where duty-paid inputs were received and used in an integrated manufacturing process, even though the invoice named one unit while the inputs were actually handled by another unit. The invoice misdescription was treated as a curable technical defect and did not defeat credit eligibility, because there was no dispute that the inputs were duty paid and were used in the manufacture of final excisable goods. Partial use of inputs outside the main factory premises also did not by itself disqualify credit where the manufacturing chain remained continuous. The denial of credit and the penalty were accordingly set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:36:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155678" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 526 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118681</link>
      <description>Modvat credit remained admissible where duty-paid inputs were received and used in an integrated manufacturing process, even though the invoice named one unit while the inputs were actually handled by another unit. The invoice misdescription was treated as a curable technical defect and did not defeat credit eligibility, because there was no dispute that the inputs were duty paid and were used in the manufacture of final excisable goods. Partial use of inputs outside the main factory premises also did not by itself disqualify credit where the manufacturing chain remained continuous. The denial of credit and the penalty were accordingly set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>