<?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 (11) TMI 239 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50308</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was treated as admissible on refractory bricks and other refractories, as items used in the manufacturing process and not as self-contained machinery or plant. Credit was also allowed on chemicals, resins, fluxes, coating materials, mixed rare earth metals, ramming mass and UNISET-710 because they were used directly or in relation to manufacture, and consumption in the final product was not the controlling test. Procedural defects in invoices and declarations, including use of the head office address and absence of duplicate marking, were held insufficient to defeat credit where duty-paid receipt and use in the factory were established. Credit of Rs. 4,535 was upheld as denied, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:43:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 239 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50308</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was treated as admissible on refractory bricks and other refractories, as items used in the manufacturing process and not as self-contained machinery or plant. Credit was also allowed on chemicals, resins, fluxes, coating materials, mixed rare earth metals, ramming mass and UNISET-710 because they were used directly or in relation to manufacture, and consumption in the final product was not the controlling test. Procedural defects in invoices and declarations, including use of the head office address and absence of duplicate marking, were held insufficient to defeat credit where duty-paid receipt and use in the factory were established. Credit of Rs. 4,535 was upheld as denied, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50308</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>