<?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>1996 (8) TMI 553 - CESTAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275794</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the lower authority&#039;s decision, rejecting the appeals against the demand for duty on excess wastage of crown cork and denial of Modvat credit for wasted corks. Relying on precedents and previous Tribunal decisions, it found that the demands were unsustainable, as demanding duty based on crown cork wastage without proper inquiry was unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized that damaged crown corks should be considered waste and not eligible for Modvat credit, in line with established legal principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:06:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 553 - CESTAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275794</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the lower authority&#039;s decision, rejecting the appeals against the demand for duty on excess wastage of crown cork and denial of Modvat credit for wasted corks. Relying on precedents and previous Tribunal decisions, it found that the demands were unsustainable, as demanding duty based on crown cork wastage without proper inquiry was unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized that damaged crown corks should be considered waste and not eligible for Modvat credit, in line with established legal principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>