<?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>2003 (2) TMI 132 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52212</link>
    <description>Ship-breaking scrap was treated as eligible for deemed Modvat credit because the relevant Rule 57G(2) order contained no express exclusion for such inputs, and exclusions from other credit orders could not be read into it. The Board&#039;s contrary circular was not accepted as a basis to deny the statutory benefit. The deemed credit facility, however, remained confined to units within the exemption structure of Notification No. 1/93, so it continued only until the value of clearances exceeded the prescribed turnover limit. The interpretation of the credit scheme was held to control despite the objection that this turnover point was not stated in the show cause notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 12:08:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 132 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52212</link>
      <description>Ship-breaking scrap was treated as eligible for deemed Modvat credit because the relevant Rule 57G(2) order contained no express exclusion for such inputs, and exclusions from other credit orders could not be read into it. The Board&#039;s contrary circular was not accepted as a basis to deny the statutory benefit. The deemed credit facility, however, remained confined to units within the exemption structure of Notification No. 1/93, so it continued only until the value of clearances exceeded the prescribed turnover limit. The interpretation of the credit scheme was held to control despite the objection that this turnover point was not stated in the show cause notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52212</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>