<?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>1987 (2) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72804</link>
    <description>Departmental permission allowing utilisation of proforma credit under Rule 56A was acted upon by the assessee for payment of duty on finished goods. In the absence of suppression of facts or misrepresentation, the later withdrawal of that permission could operate only prospectively and not retrospectively. A duty demand for the period before cancellation was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 12:08:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72804</link>
      <description>Departmental permission allowing utilisation of proforma credit under Rule 56A was acted upon by the assessee for payment of duty on finished goods. In the absence of suppression of facts or misrepresentation, the later withdrawal of that permission could operate only prospectively and not retrospectively. A duty demand for the period before cancellation was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72804</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>