<?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>2008 (3) TMI 545 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123452</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on aluminium sheets/coils was held not recoverable by invoking the extended limitation period where the assessee had already disclosed the relevant material and production particulars in statutory returns, and the demand was therefore time-barred. The denial of credit solely because the inputs were not used in the declared final product was also not sustained on the post-1-3-1997 position under Rule 57F(12). Penalty on the executives was held unwarranted because the record did not show knowledge of confiscability, and penalty could not cover conduct preceding the enabling penal provision. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and the adjudication order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:46:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 545 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123452</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on aluminium sheets/coils was held not recoverable by invoking the extended limitation period where the assessee had already disclosed the relevant material and production particulars in statutory returns, and the demand was therefore time-barred. The denial of credit solely because the inputs were not used in the declared final product was also not sustained on the post-1-3-1997 position under Rule 57F(12). Penalty on the executives was held unwarranted because the record did not show knowledge of confiscability, and penalty could not cover conduct preceding the enabling penal provision. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and the adjudication order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>