<?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>2010 (4) TMI 1094 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180935</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was discussed on four points: credit on original invoices was held unsustainable to deny where an application for permission had been filed with supporting documents and the department had not acted on it, and the goods and duty-paid character were otherwise undisputed. Credit on leased capital goods under Rule 57R(3) was also held admissible where the prescribed declaration and lease procedure were followed, and reimbursement to the finance company was not a pre-condition. The demand and penalty relating to a transformer taken outside the factory were remanded for fresh consideration on limitation and suppression. Credit on fire fighting equipment, nozzles and certain miscellaneous items was disallowed because they did not qualify as capital goods or supporting evidence was lacking.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 16:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 1094 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180935</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was discussed on four points: credit on original invoices was held unsustainable to deny where an application for permission had been filed with supporting documents and the department had not acted on it, and the goods and duty-paid character were otherwise undisputed. Credit on leased capital goods under Rule 57R(3) was also held admissible where the prescribed declaration and lease procedure were followed, and reimbursement to the finance company was not a pre-condition. The demand and penalty relating to a transformer taken outside the factory were remanded for fresh consideration on limitation and suppression. Credit on fire fighting equipment, nozzles and certain miscellaneous items was disallowed because they did not qualify as capital goods or supporting evidence was lacking.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>