<?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 (11) TMI 217 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4073</link>
    <description>Duty on finished goods returned to the factory was upheld where the goods had been cleared on payment of duty and came back outside the processes contemplated by Rule 16. Recovery of Modvat credit on inputs and capital goods was set aside because the department invoked Rules 57-I and 57U after those provisions had been substituted and were no longer in force on the date of notice. The connected penalties also failed: the penalty tied to the credit disallowance fell with that demand, and the remaining penalty was unsustainable in view of the bona fide interpretative dispute. The appeal therefore succeeded only in part, on the credit demand and related penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 217 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4073</link>
      <description>Duty on finished goods returned to the factory was upheld where the goods had been cleared on payment of duty and came back outside the processes contemplated by Rule 16. Recovery of Modvat credit on inputs and capital goods was set aside because the department invoked Rules 57-I and 57U after those provisions had been substituted and were no longer in force on the date of notice. The connected penalties also failed: the penalty tied to the credit disallowance fell with that demand, and the remaining penalty was unsustainable in view of the bona fide interpretative dispute. The appeal therefore succeeded only in part, on the credit demand and related penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>