<?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 (5) TMI 167 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51502</link>
    <description>Captive consumption of molasses within an integrated sugar and distillery unit was treated as occurring in one factory where the units had single registration, common facilities and common records, so Modvat credit was not denied on a separate-factory theory. A belated invoice issue was held to be only a procedural defect: where the inputs were identified, duty-paid, captively consumed and no revenue loss was shown, credit remained available. By contrast, credit under Rule 57E based on Certificate A was rejected because the rule applies only where the manufacturer of inputs later pays differential duty, which did not occur here. The assessee therefore obtained only partial relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:38:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 167 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51502</link>
      <description>Captive consumption of molasses within an integrated sugar and distillery unit was treated as occurring in one factory where the units had single registration, common facilities and common records, so Modvat credit was not denied on a separate-factory theory. A belated invoice issue was held to be only a procedural defect: where the inputs were identified, duty-paid, captively consumed and no revenue loss was shown, credit remained available. By contrast, credit under Rule 57E based on Certificate A was rejected because the rule applies only where the manufacturer of inputs later pays differential duty, which did not occur here. The assessee therefore obtained only partial relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>