<?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>2001 (10) TMI 100 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46071</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was discussed in the context of a declaration that did not specifically name the final product, but the manufactured goods were functionally connected and the variation was only minor. The analysis states that polythene bags required polythene sheets, making sheet manufacture incidental and essential to the final product, so the initial registration was not inconsistent. It also notes that the inputs satisfied the relevant rules and that the Board&#039;s circular advised against denying credit for minor descriptive variations where the input description and chapter number were correct. Clearance in the presence of departmental staff without objection was treated as supporting the admissibility of credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:07:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 100 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46071</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was discussed in the context of a declaration that did not specifically name the final product, but the manufactured goods were functionally connected and the variation was only minor. The analysis states that polythene bags required polythene sheets, making sheet manufacture incidental and essential to the final product, so the initial registration was not inconsistent. It also notes that the inputs satisfied the relevant rules and that the Board&#039;s circular advised against denying credit for minor descriptive variations where the input description and chapter number were correct. Clearance in the presence of departmental staff without objection was treated as supporting the admissibility of credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>