<?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>2007 (9) TMI 613 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172640</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the denial of Modvat credit/Cenvat credit to the appellant due to the lack of thickness specification on invoices for tin plates. The core issue was the appellant&#039;s ability to use the inputs for manufacturing final products. The Tribunal found that the appellant had received tin plates of various thicknesses for can manufacturing, and the lack of specific details in the show cause notice undermined the Revenue&#039;s claim. Citing a previous ruling in the appellant&#039;s favor on a similar issue, the Tribunal upheld the decision to set aside the duty demand against the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:50:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 613 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172640</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the denial of Modvat credit/Cenvat credit to the appellant due to the lack of thickness specification on invoices for tin plates. The core issue was the appellant&#039;s ability to use the inputs for manufacturing final products. The Tribunal found that the appellant had received tin plates of various thicknesses for can manufacturing, and the lack of specific details in the show cause notice undermined the Revenue&#039;s claim. Citing a previous ruling in the appellant&#039;s favor on a similar issue, the Tribunal upheld the decision to set aside the duty demand against the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>