<?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 (11) TMI 248 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53716</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was held inadmissible on electrodes because the Larger Bench view treated such credit as not permissible under the law. Credit on steel forgings could not be denied merely for non-filing of a declaration where the goods were duty paid and used in relation to manufacture, so that denial was set aside. Penalty was also found unwarranted because, before the Larger Bench ruling, the admissibility of credit on electrodes had been the subject of conflicting Tribunal decisions. The order was therefore modified to sustain denial only on electrodes, allow credit on steel forgings, and set aside the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:36:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 248 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53716</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was held inadmissible on electrodes because the Larger Bench view treated such credit as not permissible under the law. Credit on steel forgings could not be denied merely for non-filing of a declaration where the goods were duty paid and used in relation to manufacture, so that denial was set aside. Penalty was also found unwarranted because, before the Larger Bench ruling, the admissibility of credit on electrodes had been the subject of conflicting Tribunal decisions. The order was therefore modified to sustain denial only on electrodes, allow credit on steel forgings, and set aside the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>