<?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 (3) TMI 87 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49772</link>
    <description>A request to reclassify a machine so that Modvat credit could be claimed was examined as potentially dubious, and the machine was indicated to fall under Heading 84.24. Even so, seeking a different classification to obtain a statutory benefit was not treated as punishable because no specific provision in the Act or Rules authorised such a penalty, and none was identified by the department. The penalty was therefore not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:46:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88252" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 87 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49772</link>
      <description>A request to reclassify a machine so that Modvat credit could be claimed was examined as potentially dubious, and the machine was indicated to fall under Heading 84.24. Even so, seeking a different classification to obtain a statutory benefit was not treated as punishable because no specific provision in the Act or Rules authorised such a penalty, and none was identified by the department. The penalty was therefore not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>