<?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 (11) TMI 1104 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351225</link>
    <description>Modvat credit remained available for inputs received, tested and used in processing or assembly even if some were later found defective, unusable or became waste during manufacture. Rules 57-A and 57-D treated such activity as part of manufacture and did not require the inputs to be physically contained in the final product. Stock-record discrepancies showing shortages in certain items and excesses in others, particularly where minute inputs were accounted for by weighment, did not establish an actual shortage without cogent contrary evidence. The finding of no actual shortage was factual, leaving no substantial question of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497202" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1104 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351225</link>
      <description>Modvat credit remained available for inputs received, tested and used in processing or assembly even if some were later found defective, unusable or became waste during manufacture. Rules 57-A and 57-D treated such activity as part of manufacture and did not require the inputs to be physically contained in the final product. Stock-record discrepancies showing shortages in certain items and excesses in others, particularly where minute inputs were accounted for by weighment, did not establish an actual shortage without cogent contrary evidence. The finding of no actual shortage was factual, leaving no substantial question of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>