<?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 301 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54449</link>
    <description>Where capital goods on which Modvat credit had been taken are later sold as waste and scrap, the excise rules require duty to be paid on the waste and scrap. The dispute turned on interpretation of Rule 57-S(2)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the availing of Modvat credit on the capital goods was not in dispute. Duty on the scrap was therefore upheld and the order confirming duty was restored, while penalty was set aside because the matter involved rule interpretation rather than contumacious conduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:52:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 301 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54449</link>
      <description>Where capital goods on which Modvat credit had been taken are later sold as waste and scrap, the excise rules require duty to be paid on the waste and scrap. The dispute turned on interpretation of Rule 57-S(2)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the availing of Modvat credit on the capital goods was not in dispute. Duty on the scrap was therefore upheld and the order confirming duty was restored, while penalty was set aside because the matter involved rule interpretation rather than contumacious conduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>