<?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>2004 (5) TMI 94 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48998</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on disposable syringes and needles packed with injections was held admissible because the value of those items was included in the assessable value of the final product. The Revenue had treated the packing and inclusion of the unipack contents as part of the manufacturing process under Chapter Note V of Chapter 30, so the same goods could not be recognised for duty valuation and simultaneously excluded for credit purposes. Earlier decisions in the same assessee&#039;s case were distinguished on the basis that they concerned credit claimed as packing material on different facts. Denial of credit was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:50:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87478" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 94 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48998</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on disposable syringes and needles packed with injections was held admissible because the value of those items was included in the assessable value of the final product. The Revenue had treated the packing and inclusion of the unipack contents as part of the manufacturing process under Chapter Note V of Chapter 30, so the same goods could not be recognised for duty valuation and simultaneously excluded for credit purposes. Earlier decisions in the same assessee&#039;s case were distinguished on the basis that they concerned credit claimed as packing material on different facts. Denial of credit was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>