<?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 (5) TMI 229 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342491</link>
    <description>Reversal of Modvat credit under the job-work return condition was treated as already confirmed in the recorded findings, and the omission to repeat that confirmation in the operative portion did not affect the substantive determination. The reversed amount remained maintained. Interest was not payable on the reversed credit because no interest had been proposed in the show cause notice and Rule 57I(5) applies only where credit is wrongly availed due to fraud, collusion, misstatement, or suppression of facts. As the reversal arose from non-return of inputs sent for job work, not from wrongful availment on a culpable basis, the interest demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 May 2017 10:10:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 229 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342491</link>
      <description>Reversal of Modvat credit under the job-work return condition was treated as already confirmed in the recorded findings, and the omission to repeat that confirmation in the operative portion did not affect the substantive determination. The reversed amount remained maintained. Interest was not payable on the reversed credit because no interest had been proposed in the show cause notice and Rule 57I(5) applies only where credit is wrongly availed due to fraud, collusion, misstatement, or suppression of facts. As the reversal arose from non-return of inputs sent for job work, not from wrongful availment on a culpable basis, the interest demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>