<?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>2001 (10) TMI 214 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51001</link>
    <description>Processed tyre cord fabric captively consumed in tyre manufacture was treated as classifiable under Heading 59.06, so the additional excise duty demand could not be sustained. The exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. was available because reversal of Modvat credit was accepted as compliance with the condition that credit had not been availed, so no basic excise duty was payable. Once both duty demands failed, the penalty had no independent basis and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:39:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 214 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51001</link>
      <description>Processed tyre cord fabric captively consumed in tyre manufacture was treated as classifiable under Heading 59.06, so the additional excise duty demand could not be sustained. The exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. was available because reversal of Modvat credit was accepted as compliance with the condition that credit had not been availed, so no basic excise duty was payable. Once both duty demands failed, the penalty had no independent basis and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>