<?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>2013 (9) TMI 94 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236661</link>
    <description>MODVAT credit on capital goods received under a leave and licence arrangement was treated as admissible where the goods were used in manufacturing and the prescribed MODVAT procedure was followed. The Court relied on contemporaneous departmental clarification and an earlier identical ruling supporting credit for a job worker, and rejected ownership-based objections to the mode of acquisition. It also held that demand and penalty could not be sustained on alleged suppression or non-disclosure of the nature of acquisition, since the same legal position had already been accepted in a similarly placed case. The Tribunal&#039;s order allowing credit was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 94 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236661</link>
      <description>MODVAT credit on capital goods received under a leave and licence arrangement was treated as admissible where the goods were used in manufacturing and the prescribed MODVAT procedure was followed. The Court relied on contemporaneous departmental clarification and an earlier identical ruling supporting credit for a job worker, and rejected ownership-based objections to the mode of acquisition. It also held that demand and penalty could not be sustained on alleged suppression or non-disclosure of the nature of acquisition, since the same legal position had already been accepted in a similarly placed case. The Tribunal&#039;s order allowing credit was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>