<?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>1992 (1) TMI 131 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46533</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was admissible on duty paid for glass bottles used as durable and returnable packing for aerated water, because Rule 57A allowed credit on inputs used in or in relation to manufacture and the exemption notification operating under Rule 8(1) required valuation under Section 4, which excluded such packing from assessable value. The argument that credit would create a double benefit was rejected because the exemption and credit schemes operated in different fields, and the fact that aerated water was assessed on a specified basis did not exclude the packing materials from Rule 57A. The assessee was therefore entitled to set off the credit against duty on the final product during the notification period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:14:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (1) TMI 131 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46533</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was admissible on duty paid for glass bottles used as durable and returnable packing for aerated water, because Rule 57A allowed credit on inputs used in or in relation to manufacture and the exemption notification operating under Rule 8(1) required valuation under Section 4, which excluded such packing from assessable value. The argument that credit would create a double benefit was rejected because the exemption and credit schemes operated in different fields, and the fact that aerated water was assessed on a specified basis did not exclude the packing materials from Rule 57A. The assessee was therefore entitled to set off the credit against duty on the final product during the notification period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46533</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>