<?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 (12) TMI 141 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54717</link>
    <description>Tool kits supplied with motor vehicles or chassis were held not to be inputs used in or in relation to manufacture, because they are supplied after manufacture and are meant for maintenance and repair; Modvat credit on such kits was therefore inadmissible. However, if the value of the tool kits had already been included in the assessable value of the vehicles or chassis, recovery of the credit had to be adjusted against any excess duty paid to avoid double recovery. As the record was insufficient on that quantification, the recovery question was remanded for fresh verification and computation, and penalty was set aside as the dispute involved interpretation of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2024 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 141 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54717</link>
      <description>Tool kits supplied with motor vehicles or chassis were held not to be inputs used in or in relation to manufacture, because they are supplied after manufacture and are meant for maintenance and repair; Modvat credit on such kits was therefore inadmissible. However, if the value of the tool kits had already been included in the assessable value of the vehicles or chassis, recovery of the credit had to be adjusted against any excess duty paid to avoid double recovery. As the record was insufficient on that quantification, the recovery question was remanded for fresh verification and computation, and penalty was set aside as the dispute involved interpretation of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>