<?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>2002 (3) TMI 116 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51243</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was unavailable on duty-paid tucks of blades packed with disposable razors because Rule 57A requires goods used in or in relation to manufacture, and a separate retail product that is incompatible with the final product does not become an input merely by joint packing. The razors in the combination pack remained the same goods as the singly sold razors, so MRP-based valuation applied on the individual razor MRP rather than the combined pack price. Penalties were unsustainable because the record showed no misdeclaration, suppression, fraud, or contumacious conduct; the penalty portion was therefore set aside while the denial of credit and duty demand were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 11:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 116 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51243</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was unavailable on duty-paid tucks of blades packed with disposable razors because Rule 57A requires goods used in or in relation to manufacture, and a separate retail product that is incompatible with the final product does not become an input merely by joint packing. The razors in the combination pack remained the same goods as the singly sold razors, so MRP-based valuation applied on the individual razor MRP rather than the combined pack price. Penalties were unsustainable because the record showed no misdeclaration, suppression, fraud, or contumacious conduct; the penalty portion was therefore set aside while the denial of credit and duty demand were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51243</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>