<?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>2000 (10) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46068</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was unavailable on inputs used in final products cleared without duty under an exemption notification, even though the final product was otherwise dutiable. The scheme under Rule 57A allowed credit for inputs used in excisable final products, while Rule 57C denied credit where the final products were exempt or chargeable at nil rate; the manufacturer could not retain credit for the exempt portion of clearances and also claim the exemption benefit. Rule 57CC was treated as reflecting the existing scheme rather than creating a new principle. Rule 57D did not apply because the goods destroyed after testing were completed products cleared for use, not waste or refuse arising in manufacture.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:59:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46068</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was unavailable on inputs used in final products cleared without duty under an exemption notification, even though the final product was otherwise dutiable. The scheme under Rule 57A allowed credit for inputs used in excisable final products, while Rule 57C denied credit where the final products were exempt or chargeable at nil rate; the manufacturer could not retain credit for the exempt portion of clearances and also claim the exemption benefit. Rule 57CC was treated as reflecting the existing scheme rather than creating a new principle. Rule 57D did not apply because the goods destroyed after testing were completed products cleared for use, not waste or refuse arising in manufacture.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46068</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>