<?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>2014 (4) TMI 221 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245723</link>
    <description>Where a sanctioned amalgamation order fixes no effective date, the amalgamation takes effect from the date the certified copy is filed with the Registrar of Companies, and SSI exemption was therefore available only up to the day before that filing date. Duty on removed inputs was recoverable only to the extent MODVAT credit had been availed and the inputs were later returned in job-work movements; demands based merely on removal of raw materials were otherwise unsustainable. Challan-based clearances required proper corroboration, and denial of relied-upon records justified remand. Differential job-work charges raised through debit notes were not exigible to excise duty on these facts. Mere non-entry in RG-1, without evidence of clandestine removal, did not justify confiscation, and confiscation was also unwarranted for goods moved under regular challans in a revenue-neutral setting.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 221 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245723</link>
      <description>Where a sanctioned amalgamation order fixes no effective date, the amalgamation takes effect from the date the certified copy is filed with the Registrar of Companies, and SSI exemption was therefore available only up to the day before that filing date. Duty on removed inputs was recoverable only to the extent MODVAT credit had been availed and the inputs were later returned in job-work movements; demands based merely on removal of raw materials were otherwise unsustainable. Challan-based clearances required proper corroboration, and denial of relied-upon records justified remand. Differential job-work charges raised through debit notes were not exigible to excise duty on these facts. Mere non-entry in RG-1, without evidence of clandestine removal, did not justify confiscation, and confiscation was also unwarranted for goods moved under regular challans in a revenue-neutral setting.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>