<?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 (8) TMI 1166 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347108</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was sustained as reversible where inputs were used in exempted products and the assessee failed to disprove ineligibility for the remaining credit. Duty on tools and dies manufactured and consumed during the relevant period was upheld because the demand was supported by the assessee&#039;s own figures and a detailed verification of records. Notification No. 67/95-CE was held to operate prospectively from 16.03.1995, with no basis for treating it as retrospective or merely clarificatory. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because investigation revealed suppression and misstatement of material facts, including non-disclosure of the actual use of inputs and capital goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:09:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1166 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347108</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was sustained as reversible where inputs were used in exempted products and the assessee failed to disprove ineligibility for the remaining credit. Duty on tools and dies manufactured and consumed during the relevant period was upheld because the demand was supported by the assessee&#039;s own figures and a detailed verification of records. Notification No. 67/95-CE was held to operate prospectively from 16.03.1995, with no basis for treating it as retrospective or merely clarificatory. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because investigation revealed suppression and misstatement of material facts, including non-disclosure of the actual use of inputs and capital goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347108</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>