<?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>2007 (6) TMI 358 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121812</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was not required to be reversed where inputs were issued for manufacture and were wasted or rejected during the manufacturing process, because waste arising after commencement of manufacture was treated as within the scheme&#039;s permissible credit treatment. The denial of credit therefore failed. As the penalty and interest were founded on the same credit demand, they could not survive once the principal reversal issue was decided against the department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:30:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 358 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121812</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was not required to be reversed where inputs were issued for manufacture and were wasted or rejected during the manufacturing process, because waste arising after commencement of manufacture was treated as within the scheme&#039;s permissible credit treatment. The denial of credit therefore failed. As the penalty and interest were founded on the same credit demand, they could not survive once the principal reversal issue was decided against the department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>