<?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>2010 (8) TMI 428 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203472</link>
    <description>Penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) was not attracted where Modvat credit on admissible capital goods was taken before installation but was not utilised and was promptly reversed suo motu after the irregularity was noticed. The premature credit was later lawfully availed after installation, and the record showed no intention to contravene the law or wrongfully use the credit. On these facts, the ingredients for penalty were not made out, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 428 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203472</link>
      <description>Penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) was not attracted where Modvat credit on admissible capital goods was taken before installation but was not utilised and was promptly reversed suo motu after the irregularity was noticed. The premature credit was later lawfully availed after installation, and the record showed no intention to contravene the law or wrongfully use the credit. On these facts, the ingredients for penalty were not made out, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>