<?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>2005 (1) TMI 147 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53778</link>
    <description>Duty was payable on waste and scrap arising from capital goods cleared by a manufacturer after availing Modvat credit, because the relevant rule fastened liability on such waste and scrap and was not limited to scrap generated in the course of manufacture of the final product. The manufacturer, having taken the credit benefit, was required to comply with the rule&#039;s conditions, so the duty demand was sustained. Penalty was not imposable, as the dispute turned on interpretation of the governing rule and the facts did not justify a penal consequence. The Revenue therefore succeeded only on the duty issue, while the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:48:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 147 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53778</link>
      <description>Duty was payable on waste and scrap arising from capital goods cleared by a manufacturer after availing Modvat credit, because the relevant rule fastened liability on such waste and scrap and was not limited to scrap generated in the course of manufacture of the final product. The manufacturer, having taken the credit benefit, was required to comply with the rule&#039;s conditions, so the duty demand was sustained. Penalty was not imposable, as the dispute turned on interpretation of the governing rule and the facts did not justify a penal consequence. The Revenue therefore succeeded only on the duty issue, while the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>