<?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>2017 (2) TMI 96 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338396</link>
    <description>Sodium Silico Aluminate used as a molecular sieve in the manufacture of Linear Alkyl Benzene was treated as an input under Rule 57A because it was a consumable chemical used in the extraction stage and as a catalyst in relation to manufacture, rather than as plant, machinery, equipment, appliance or apparatus. The discussion also notes that where the availment of credit had already come to departmental notice in audit and the matter was closed after obtaining a chemical opinion, a show cause notice issued nearly three years later did not establish suppression or wilful misstatement, so the extended limitation period was not available. Credit was therefore admissible and the demand failed on merits and limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2017 09:34:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 96 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338396</link>
      <description>Sodium Silico Aluminate used as a molecular sieve in the manufacture of Linear Alkyl Benzene was treated as an input under Rule 57A because it was a consumable chemical used in the extraction stage and as a catalyst in relation to manufacture, rather than as plant, machinery, equipment, appliance or apparatus. The discussion also notes that where the availment of credit had already come to departmental notice in audit and the matter was closed after obtaining a chemical opinion, a show cause notice issued nearly three years later did not establish suppression or wilful misstatement, so the extended limitation period was not available. Credit was therefore admissible and the demand failed on merits and limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>