<?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>2015 (6) TMI 402 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260477</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on watch parts remained admissible where the inputs were first taken into stock, tested, and then issued for manufacture, and some later became waste or defective during processing, assembly, testing, or related research activity; Rule 57D protected the credit because the inputs had already been used in or in relation to manufacture. The alleged stock shortage was not proved, as the reconciliation records, weighment-based stock maintenance, and chartered accountant&#039;s certificate supported the appellant&#039;s explanation and the Revenue produced no cogent rebuttal. Accordingly, reversal of credit and penalty were not justified, and the demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 15:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=387464" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 402 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260477</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on watch parts remained admissible where the inputs were first taken into stock, tested, and then issued for manufacture, and some later became waste or defective during processing, assembly, testing, or related research activity; Rule 57D protected the credit because the inputs had already been used in or in relation to manufacture. The alleged stock shortage was not proved, as the reconciliation records, weighment-based stock maintenance, and chartered accountant&#039;s certificate supported the appellant&#039;s explanation and the Revenue produced no cogent rebuttal. Accordingly, reversal of credit and penalty were not justified, and the demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>