<?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>2004 (7) TMI 176 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53099</link>
    <description>Supplementary invoices reflecting bona fide cost escalation under the parties&#039; commercial arrangements were treated as valid documents for CENVAT credit where the escalated amounts formed part of project cost and cost of manufacture. Credit was admissible even for invoices issued before 29-8-2000, because the later notification was enabling in nature and did not prohibit earlier invoices. The subsequent restriction could not be applied retrospectively, so the amount covered by the invoice dated 23-8-2000 was not disqualified. As the duty had been paid on the escalated cost and the invoices evidenced that escalation, denial of credit was unjustified and the demand, interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:53:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 176 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53099</link>
      <description>Supplementary invoices reflecting bona fide cost escalation under the parties&#039; commercial arrangements were treated as valid documents for CENVAT credit where the escalated amounts formed part of project cost and cost of manufacture. Credit was admissible even for invoices issued before 29-8-2000, because the later notification was enabling in nature and did not prohibit earlier invoices. The subsequent restriction could not be applied retrospectively, so the amount covered by the invoice dated 23-8-2000 was not disqualified. As the duty had been paid on the escalated cost and the invoices evidenced that escalation, denial of credit was unjustified and the demand, interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>