<?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 66 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2596</link>
    <description>Capital goods credit was held admissible where refinery machinery formed part of the factory and was not used exclusively for exempt production, because the manufacturing stream also supported dutiable Acid Oil clearances. Credit was also allowed on computers used to monitor operations and material movement, as well as on welding electrodes and paints used in the factory. The extended period could not be invoked because the assessee had disclosed the set-up, usage and clearances through declarations, invoices and returns, so there was no suppression or misrepresentation. Penalty consequently had no basis, and the disputed credit, demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 66 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2596</link>
      <description>Capital goods credit was held admissible where refinery machinery formed part of the factory and was not used exclusively for exempt production, because the manufacturing stream also supported dutiable Acid Oil clearances. Credit was also allowed on computers used to monitor operations and material movement, as well as on welding electrodes and paints used in the factory. The extended period could not be invoked because the assessee had disclosed the set-up, usage and clearances through declarations, invoices and returns, so there was no suppression or misrepresentation. Penalty consequently had no basis, and the disputed credit, demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>