<?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>2003 (2) TMI 507 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183172</link>
    <description>Modvat credit is inadmissible where tin plates exceeding the specified usable thickness cannot be used in manufacturing the final product; non-disclosure of required input specifications supports invocation of the extended limitation period, and the related credit demand stands sustained. A separate demand cannot be maintained where the supporting annexure may also cover thinner, eligible inputs and no independent proof establishes that the disputed inputs exceeded the relevant thickness. Penalty requires satisfaction of the statutory conditions under the provision invoked: it cannot rest on a provision different from that proposed in the show cause notice, and personal liability requires dealings with goods liable to confiscation. The balance demand and penalties are therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 May 2019 13:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430157" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 507 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183172</link>
      <description>Modvat credit is inadmissible where tin plates exceeding the specified usable thickness cannot be used in manufacturing the final product; non-disclosure of required input specifications supports invocation of the extended limitation period, and the related credit demand stands sustained. A separate demand cannot be maintained where the supporting annexure may also cover thinner, eligible inputs and no independent proof establishes that the disputed inputs exceeded the relevant thickness. Penalty requires satisfaction of the statutory conditions under the provision invoked: it cannot rest on a provision different from that proposed in the show cause notice, and personal liability requires dealings with goods liable to confiscation. The balance demand and penalties are therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183172</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>