<?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 (2) TMI 768 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119431</link>
    <description>Duty on stock of inputs, semi-processed goods and finished goods was upheld after the assessee opted out of MODVAT because it failed to produce the declaration made at the time of opting out, and the declared stock did not reconcile with RG-1 records, leaving an unexplained differential quantity. The assessee also could not show that, for semi-processed goods sent for job work, the equivalent duty credit on inputs had been debited or reversed, and it produced no documentary proof of the claimed practice of using modvatable and non-modvatable inputs in equal proportion. On this record, the claim was held unsubstantiated and the demand sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156428" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 768 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119431</link>
      <description>Duty on stock of inputs, semi-processed goods and finished goods was upheld after the assessee opted out of MODVAT because it failed to produce the declaration made at the time of opting out, and the declared stock did not reconcile with RG-1 records, leaving an unexplained differential quantity. The assessee also could not show that, for semi-processed goods sent for job work, the equivalent duty credit on inputs had been debited or reversed, and it produced no documentary proof of the claimed practice of using modvatable and non-modvatable inputs in equal proportion. On this record, the claim was held unsubstantiated and the demand sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>