<?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 (10) TMI 202 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349047</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on capital goods was held unsustainable where the assessee could not satisfactorily prove, with reliable supporting evidence, that depreciation under the Income-tax Act had not been claimed on the duty component, as required by Rule 57R(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On the available records, including the chartered accountant&#039;s certificate and reconciliations, discrepancies remained and the disallowance of credit with consequential duty and interest was maintained. Penalties under Rule 57U(3) were not sustained because the dispute was interpretative and the duty amount had already been paid before adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2017 06:50:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491578" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 202 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349047</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on capital goods was held unsustainable where the assessee could not satisfactorily prove, with reliable supporting evidence, that depreciation under the Income-tax Act had not been claimed on the duty component, as required by Rule 57R(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On the available records, including the chartered accountant&#039;s certificate and reconciliations, discrepancies remained and the disallowance of credit with consequential duty and interest was maintained. Penalties under Rule 57U(3) were not sustained because the dispute was interpretative and the duty amount had already been paid before adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>