<?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 (12) TMI 158 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50148</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on POY could not be denied where the inputs were treated as duty paid, duty-paying invoices were available, and receipt in the factory was shown; the bar for non-duty-paid or inadequately duty-paid inputs was therefore inapplicable. The denial of credit was set aside, and the related duty and valuation of textured yarn were remanded for fresh determination. Penalty under Section 11AC and the interest order were also set aside because that provision was not in force for the earlier period, while the remaining penalties, including the proposed penalty on the Managing Director, were remanded for redetermination after de novo adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2019 14:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 158 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50148</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on POY could not be denied where the inputs were treated as duty paid, duty-paying invoices were available, and receipt in the factory was shown; the bar for non-duty-paid or inadequately duty-paid inputs was therefore inapplicable. The denial of credit was set aside, and the related duty and valuation of textured yarn were remanded for fresh determination. Penalty under Section 11AC and the interest order were also set aside because that provision was not in force for the earlier period, while the remaining penalties, including the proposed penalty on the Managing Director, were remanded for redetermination after de novo adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>