<?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 (9) TMI 531 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118815</link>
    <description>Penalty for capital goods credit on machinery used in limestone mines outside the factory was held unsustainable where the assessee acted under a bona fide belief, especially in the backdrop of earlier divergent views on admissibility. Credit on items used within the cement factory was held admissible under Modvat rules because the goods were used in manufacture during the relevant period. A belated declaration under Rule 57T did not defeat the credit claim where condonation had been validly granted, and the later Larger Bench ruling in Jawahar Mills supported admissibility. The assessee obtained relief on penalty, while the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the credit failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:27:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 531 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118815</link>
      <description>Penalty for capital goods credit on machinery used in limestone mines outside the factory was held unsustainable where the assessee acted under a bona fide belief, especially in the backdrop of earlier divergent views on admissibility. Credit on items used within the cement factory was held admissible under Modvat rules because the goods were used in manufacture during the relevant period. A belated declaration under Rule 57T did not defeat the credit claim where condonation had been validly granted, and the later Larger Bench ruling in Jawahar Mills supported admissibility. The assessee obtained relief on penalty, while the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the credit failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>