<?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 (11) TMI 185 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52421</link>
    <description>Refund on returned capital goods was held admissible only to the extent of the credit lawfully availed, where the goods were returned for non-conformity with specifications. Scrap and waste arising from dismantling damaged equipment were treated as non-excisable and therefore not liable to central excise duty. As substantial relief was granted on the main disputes, penalty under Section 11AC was set aside for want of a surviving basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:08:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90898" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 185 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52421</link>
      <description>Refund on returned capital goods was held admissible only to the extent of the credit lawfully availed, where the goods were returned for non-conformity with specifications. Scrap and waste arising from dismantling damaged equipment were treated as non-excisable and therefore not liable to central excise duty. As substantial relief was granted on the main disputes, penalty under Section 11AC was set aside for want of a surviving basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52421</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>