<?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 (8) TMI 216 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53247</link>
    <description>Where exempt tractors and dutiable tractors were manufactured using common inputs on which Modvat credit had been taken, payment of 8% of the value of exempt clearances under Rule 57CC was treated as sufficient compliance. Denial of Modvat credit in addition to that payment was held impermissible, and the Revenue could not require reversal of credit on the same inputs. The demand for reversal was therefore unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:36:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91724" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 216 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53247</link>
      <description>Where exempt tractors and dutiable tractors were manufactured using common inputs on which Modvat credit had been taken, payment of 8% of the value of exempt clearances under Rule 57CC was treated as sufficient compliance. Denial of Modvat credit in addition to that payment was held impermissible, and the Revenue could not require reversal of credit on the same inputs. The demand for reversal was therefore unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>