<?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 (1) TMI 276 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53280</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on HFO used to generate electricity for a residential colony and guest house was inadmissible because the input lacked the required nexus with manufacture, so denial of credit on that quantity was upheld. Credit on a minor short-received quantity of imported HFO was allowed because the shortage was less than half a per cent, duty had been paid on the full import quantity, and no material showed diversion or lesser import. Penalty under Section 11AC was unsustainable because the alleged contravention concerned wrongful availment of credit, for which the notice had not invoked the appropriate rule, so the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:16:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 276 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53280</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on HFO used to generate electricity for a residential colony and guest house was inadmissible because the input lacked the required nexus with manufacture, so denial of credit on that quantity was upheld. Credit on a minor short-received quantity of imported HFO was allowed because the shortage was less than half a per cent, duty had been paid on the full import quantity, and no material showed diversion or lesser import. Penalty under Section 11AC was unsustainable because the alleged contravention concerned wrongful availment of credit, for which the notice had not invoked the appropriate rule, so the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53280</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>