<?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 (2) TMI 586 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120644</link>
    <description>Imported goods tested sub-standard but remained in the factory, and no statutory provision was identified requiring reversal of credit on that basis. Credit had been reversed after the departmental visit, but the absence of removal from the factory and the lack of a legal basis for reversal meant the demand for recovery could not be sustained. Penalty and interest were likewise not maintainable on these facts, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:37:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 586 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120644</link>
      <description>Imported goods tested sub-standard but remained in the factory, and no statutory provision was identified requiring reversal of credit on that basis. Credit had been reversed after the departmental visit, but the absence of removal from the factory and the lack of a legal basis for reversal meant the demand for recovery could not be sustained. Penalty and interest were likewise not maintainable on these facts, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>