<?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>2005 (2) TMI 141 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47244</link>
    <description>Revenue neutrality can defeat a duty demand where the assessee&#039;s treatment of exempt inputs and exempt finished goods did not create a real revenue loss, so the Modvat credit-related demand could not be sustained. However, an admitted breach of excise rule requirements on segregation and accounting remained a punishable violation, and the setting aside of the duty demand did not amount to condonation of that breach. The assessee obtained relief from the duty demand, but the penalty for the rule violation was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 141 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47244</link>
      <description>Revenue neutrality can defeat a duty demand where the assessee&#039;s treatment of exempt inputs and exempt finished goods did not create a real revenue loss, so the Modvat credit-related demand could not be sustained. However, an admitted breach of excise rule requirements on segregation and accounting remained a punishable violation, and the setting aside of the duty demand did not amount to condonation of that breach. The assessee obtained relief from the duty demand, but the penalty for the rule violation was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>