<?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>2011 (7) TMI 873 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211550</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on inputs cannot be denied merely because an intermediate plastic container was not separately disclosed in the Rule 57G declaration or because the goods were sent to job workers without separate permission. The declaration identified the inputs and the final product as detergent paper, while the plastic containers arose only at an intermediate stage. The record also showed that the inputs sent for job work were received back and the final product was cleared on payment of duty. As the disputed article was only an intermediate product and the inputs were properly accounted for, denial of credit was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184967" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 873 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211550</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on inputs cannot be denied merely because an intermediate plastic container was not separately disclosed in the Rule 57G declaration or because the goods were sent to job workers without separate permission. The declaration identified the inputs and the final product as detergent paper, while the plastic containers arose only at an intermediate stage. The record also showed that the inputs sent for job work were received back and the final product was cleared on payment of duty. As the disputed article was only an intermediate product and the inputs were properly accounted for, denial of credit was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211550</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>