<?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 (4) TMI 164 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2730</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on aluminium wire and copper wire was held admissible where the suppliers&#039; wire drawing activity was treated as manufacture under the settled legal position and the retrospective amendment to Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The amendment treated wire drawing units as assessees and applied the manufacture character for the relevant period, so the denial of credit on the basis that drawing wire from rods was not manufacture was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 164 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2730</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on aluminium wire and copper wire was held admissible where the suppliers&#039; wire drawing activity was treated as manufacture under the settled legal position and the retrospective amendment to Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The amendment treated wire drawing units as assessees and applied the manufacture character for the relevant period, so the denial of credit on the basis that drawing wire from rods was not manufacture was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>